Cited by

801(a)–(c), 802, such authority is persuasive, ¶ 11 (recognizing that when the Arizona Rules of Evidence mirror the Federal Rules of Evidence, federal court decisions are persuasive authority in analyzing Arizona’s rules).

While “a jury must find unanimously that the defendant committed a criminal act, a defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which a crime was committed.” ¶ 20 (App. 2013).

because Summers “was admittedly unqualified to render expert testimony regarding strangulation.” As with other evidentiary determinations, we review the court’s decision whether to admit expert 14 STATE v. PARKINSON Opinion of the Court testimony for abuse of discretion.6

¶ 12 (App. 2013) (“Whether a witness is qualified as an expert is to be construed liberally,” and “[i]f an expert meets the liberal minimum qualifications, her level of expertise goes to credibility and weight, not admissibility.”) (cleaned up).

Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23; ¶ 19 (App. 2013).

¶ 64 (2003) (); ¶ 19 (App. 2013); ¶ 34 (App. 2004); ¶¶ 18-20 (2018) (discussing three types of fundamental error).

¶ 12 (App. 2013) (qualifications of expert witness are “construed liberally”).

State v. Delgado , , ¶ 2

¶ 12 (App. 2013) (“If an expert meets the liberal minimum qualifications, her level of expertise goes to credibility and weight, not admissibility.”); see also Ariz. R. Evid.

§ 13-1204(B) requires proof of a particular harm: that the defendant “impede[d] the normal breathing or circulation of blood of another person.” ¶ 24 (App. 2013).

¶ 15 (App. 2013) (whether an expert’s patients have accurately reported the cause of their injuries goes to the weight of the expert’s testimony, not its admissibility).

702 (allowing a witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to testify in the form of an opinion); ¶ 14, (noting the 2012 amendment to Rule 702 was not intended to preclude experience-based expert testimony).

and intending to use or permit the use of such an item in the commission of a burglary.” 5 STATE v. O’LAUGHLIN Opinion of the Court ¶8 In contrast, State v. Delgado illustrates the lack of duplicity when an offense is a single crime.4 ¶¶ 20-24, -83 (App. 2013).

¶23 “Whether a witness is qualified as an expert is to be construed liberally.” ¶ 12 (App. 2013).

See Sandretto, 234 Ariz. at 357, ¶ 14; ¶ 15 (App. 2013) (holding a medical expert may rely on his medical experience, including “self-reported patient histories,” and “the possibility of inaccuracies [with respect to patient histories] may be explored on cross-examination”); McMurty v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc., ¶¶ 16-17 (App. 2013)

the proposed expert does not have the specialization that the court considers most appropriate.’” ¶ 12, (citation omitted).

See, -81 (App. 2013) (medical doctor with extensive experience in emergency medicine had expertise to opine whether victim’s injuries were consistent with strangulation).