State v. Coulter, 339 P.3d 653

Defendant Eric James Coulter convicted by jury of manslaughter for shooting his former girlfriend; offense found to be dangerous and domestic-violence-related.
Jury found as an aggravating circumstance that Coulter caused the victim’s immediate family to suffer “emotional or financial harm” under A.R.S. § 13-701(D)(9).
Superior court imposed an aggravated prison sentence of 21 years; also ordered Coulter to pay for his own DNA testing.
On appeal Coulter raised three main challenges: vagueness of “emotional or financial harm,” insufficiency of evidence of financial harm, and lack of unanimity because the verdict combined the alternatives in one finding.
Appellate court reviewed for fundamental error (Coulter did not raise issues below) and affirmed the conviction and sentence, but vacated the requirement that Coulter pay for DNA testing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of “emotional or financial harm” (vagueness)	Statute provides fair notice and applies to this conduct	Coulter: phrase is vague and allows arbitrary application	Court: phrase is broad but accords with common meaning; not unconstitutionally vague; defendant had fair notice
Sufficiency of evidence for financial harm	State: funeral-related expenses shown by victim’s mother suffice	Coulter: no quantification of loss, so insufficient evidence	Court: substantial evidence (mother’s testimony re: uncovered funeral costs) supports finding
Unanimity re: verdict combining “emotional or financial harm”	State: if evidence supports each alternative, unanimity concern is avoided	Coulter: combined verdict using "or" prevents knowing which harm jurors found	Court: because evidence independently proved both emotional and financial harm beyond reasonable doubt, no error; recommends separate findings to avoid issue
Order to pay for DNA testing	State conceded error post-sentencing; prior authority requires deletion	Coulter: trial court erred in imposing payment obligation	Court: vacated the requirement that Coulter pay for DNA testing; sentence otherwise affirmed

Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) (vagueness principle and limits on facial challenges)
United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87 (1975) (vagueness analyzed in light of case facts; statutes need not be perfectly precise)
United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975) (vagueness claim examined under factual context)
State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561 (2005) (framework for fundamental-error review)
State v. Anderson, 210 Ariz. 327 (2005) (unanimity requirement for jury findings of aggravating circumstances)
State v. Gunches, 225 Ariz. 22 (2010) (standard for sufficiency of evidence on aggravating circumstances)
State v. Reyes, 232 Ariz. 468 (App.) (addressing improper imposition of DNA testing costs)