Arizona distinguishes simple assault from aggravated assault based on factors like serious physical injury, use of a deadly weapon, or assault on protected persons. The prosecution must prove not just contact, but the qualifying aggravators. We bring in medical experts to scrutinize injury classifications and challenge whether an object qualifies as a “dangerous instrument” under the specific facts.

Self‑defense, defense of others, or lack of intent can defeat or reduce charges. We also analyze identification reliability—lighting, distance, stress, and cross‑race factors—and seek to exclude unreliable conclusions through targeted expert challenges. In appropriate cases, we push for amended counts or lesser‑included offenses to decrease felony exposure.

Sentencing involves mitigating and aggravating circumstances. We compile evidence of employment, caregiving duties, treatment participation, and community support to argue for reduced terms, probation eligibility, or alternative programming.

Aggravated assault (ARS §13-1204) is a felony that hinges on “serious physical injury” or “deadly weapon” use. Armour Legal collaborates with medical experts to reclassify injuries, contests weapon definitions under Arizona law, and challenges eyewitness identification through forensic video analysis.

We file targeted Daubert motions to exclude unreliable expert testimony and press for jury instructions that narrow the State’s burden of proof—often turning potential life sentences into misdemeanor pleas or diversion programs, depending on client circumstances and case strengths.

Serious‑injury classifications and “dangerous instrument” findings often make or break an aggravated‑assault case. We retain medical experts to challenge injury severity and causation and to distinguish lacerations or fractures from the statutory threshold of “serious physical injury.” We analyze whether an object truly qualifies as a dangerous instrument under case‑specific use and context. Where identification is disputed, we apply eyewitness‑reliability science—lighting, distance, stress, cross‑race factors—to undermine certainty claims.

We simultaneously build affirmative defenses—self‑defense, defense of others, or lack of intent—and negotiate toward amended counts or lesser‑included offenses that reduce felony exposure or remove “dangerousness” designations. Our sentencing work compiles employment, caregiving, and treatment proof to argue for mitigated terms or probation where available. From day one, we position the case for the narrowest, most defensible resolution.