State v. Aguirre

¶1 Daniel Marshall Aguirre appeals his convictions and sentence for assault and rape. Aguirre alleges that the trial court erred by admitting the testimony *355of the prosecution’s expert, excluding defense testimony and limiting cross-examination, instructing the jury on the definition of “unlawful force,” and refusing to continue sentencing following his retention of new counsel. Aguirre also alleges that the trial court’s addition of a deadly weapon enhancement to his sentence for assault with a deadly weapon violates double jeopardy. Under the analysis articulated below, we affirm the Court…