State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr., 235 Ariz. 277

Background

Defendant Armando Pena, Jr. stabbed a victim multiple times, causing wounds to her left hand (3-inch cut exposing muscle), leg (3–4 inch laceration to fatty tissue/muscle), and abdomen (2 cm puncture exposing fat).
A jury convicted Pena of kidnapping and three counts of aggravated assault under A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(3) — one aggravated-assault count for each wound; sentences were concurrent prison terms of 10.5 years.
On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the hand-injury aggravated-assault conviction but reversed the abdominal-injury conviction for insufficient evidence.
Both parties sought review before the Arizona Supreme Court to resolve the proper interpretation of “temporary but substantial disfigurement” in § 13-1204(A)(3).
The Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation and sufficiency of the evidence de novo and considered dictionary meanings and prior Arizona decisions for guidance.
The Court concluded that the jury had substantial evidence to find both the hand and abdominal injuries met the statute’s “temporary but substantial disfigurement” standard, vacated part of the court of appeals opinion, and affirmed all convictions and sentences.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Pena)	Held
1. How to interpret “temporary but substantial disfigurement” in § 13-1204(A)(3)	Term should be read broadly enough to include the injuries here	Term should require greater seriousness/duration or be tied to location (e.g., face)	Court adopted common meanings: “disfigurement” = spoil appearance; “substantial” = considerable; “temporary” = limited duration; all are fact‑intensive factors for jury to weigh
2. Is injury location (normally clothed vs. exposed) determinative of disfigurement?	Location may inform substantiality but not dispositive	Argued location affects whether injury is disfiguring	Court: Location relevant to substantiality/visibility but does not alone determine disfigurement
3. Is duration part of “disfigurement” or only relevant to “temporary/substantial”?	Duration helps evaluate substantiality but does not change whether something is disfiguring	Duration should determine whether something is disfiguring	Court: Duration is not part of “disfigurement” itself; it is relevant to whether the disfigurement is temporary and/or substantial
4. Was there sufficient evidence that the abdominal wound was a “temporary but substantial disfigurement”?	Yes — photos and testimony support that the puncture exposed fatty tissue and could be substantially disfiguring	No — court of appeals said insufficient evidence for abdomen	Court: Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding for the abdominal injury; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hansen, 215 Ariz. 287 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559 (sufficiency of evidence reviewed de novo)
State v. Hausner, 230 Ariz. 60 (definition of substantial evidence standard)
State v. Cox, 217 Ariz. 353 (use of common meanings when statute silent)
State v. Girdler, 138 Ariz. 482 (viewing conflicts in evidence against defendant)
Funk v. Industrial Commission, 167 Ariz. 466 (distinguished on facts regarding permanent disfigurement)
State v. Pena, 233 Ariz. 112 (Court of Appeals decision reviewed and partially vacated)