statements to the AMB and other agencies were made with malice — that is, were knowingly false or made while entertaining doubts of their truth. Advanced Cardiac Specialists, 222 Ariz. at 388, ¶ 14, 214 P.3d at 1029. We presume the jury followed the superior court’s instructions. See Wendland v. AdobeAir, Inc., 223 Ariz. 199, 207, ¶ 28, 221 P.3d 390, 398 (App.2009). ¶34 Furthermore, because the jury was not provided special interrogatories or special verdict forms for each damage component, we cannot determine whether the jury held Petta liable for defamation and/or false light invasion of privacy in connection with her statements to the AMB, other agencies, and/or government officials. See Murcott v. Best W. Int’l, Inc., 198 Ariz. 349, 361, ¶¶ 64, 66, 9 P.3d 1088, 1100 (App.2000) (<HOLDING>). V. Denial of Petta’s Motion for New Trial or
holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence holding that the verdict must be sustained if there is any competent evidence to support the verdict holding that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jurys verdict of acquittal on another count citations omitted recognizing this court will uphold a general verdict if evidence on any one count issue or theory sustains the verdict citations omitted holding that under aspinwall when the trial court submits to the jury a good count  one that is supported by the evidence  and a bad count  one that is not supported by the evidence  and the jury returns a general verdict this court cannot presume that the verdict was returned on the good count in such a case a judgment entered upon the verdict must be reversed