State of Arizona v. Manuel Alejandro Delgado, 303 P.3d 76

Delgado was convicted of aggravated assault (count 1) and simple assault (count 3) following a domestic-violence incident with D.H.
The events occurred in Oct. 2011; Delgado allegedly grabbed D.H., headbutted her, and pressed his forearm to her throat, impeding her breathing.
D.H. testified Delgado impeded her breathing and caused injuries; the jury acquitted him of the simple assault charge in count 2 and convicted on count 1 and the lesser-included offense on count 3.
Delgado received a prison term of eight years for aggravated assault and time served for simple assault.
Delgado challenged the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 13-1204(B)(1), the admissibility of a “strangulation expert” under Rule 702, and whether the information/charges were duplicitous.
The appellate court affirmed Delgado’s convictions and sentences on all issues raised.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 13-1204(B)(1) is unconstitutionally vague	Delgado argues ‘normal’ breathing is vague	Statutory text and ordinary meaning provide notice	Not unconstitutionally vague
Whether Salik was qualified as an expert under Rule 702	Salik lacked specialized strangulation training	Salik’s medical experience qualifies him as an expert	Salik qualified; court did not abuse discretion in admitting testimony
Whether the information/charges were duplicitous, violating unanimity rights	Duplicitous wording created nonunanimous verdict risk	Statute creates a single offense and does not require unanimity on form of assault	Aggravated assault charge not fundamentally defective; simple-assault instruction not reversible due to invited error

State v. McDermott, 208 Ariz. 332, 93 P.3d 532 (App. 2004) (statutory vagueness standards; notice and certainty in law)
State v. Cotton, 197 Ariz. 584, 5 P.3d 918 (App. 2000) (vagueness not defeated by imprecision; ordinary meaning suffices)
State v. Takacs, 169 Ariz. 392, 819 P.2d 978 (App. 1991) (constitutional construction of statutes; multiple interpretations allowed)
Paredes-Solano, 223 Ariz. 284, 222 P.3d 900 (App. 2009) (one offense vs. multiple under § 13-1204(B); pattern of conduct focus)
In re Jeremiah T., 212 Ariz. 30, 126 P.3d 177 (App. 2006) (whether related acts create separate crimes not required for unanimity)
State v. Ramsey, 211 Ariz. 529, 124 P.3d 756 (App. 2005) (patterned offense interpretation; unanimity considerations)
State v. Diaz, 224 Ariz. 322, 230 P.3d 705 (2010) (statutory interpretation considerations in aggravated offenses)
Sanders v. State, 205 Ariz. 208, 68 P.3d 434 (App. 2003) (distinct underlying acts may form single offenses)
Davis v. State, 206 Ariz. 377, 79 P.3d 64 (App. 2003) (unanimity considerations in duplicitous charges)
Walker v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 208 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2000) (expert testimony based on patient histories can be reliable)
Primiano v. Cook, 598 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2010) (Daubert-like standard; expert testimony need not be conclusive)