NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL DANIEL PING, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0826 

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-141318-001

The Honorable Dean M. Fink, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Robert A. Walsh

Counsel for Appellee

The Nolan Law Firm PLLC, Mesa

By Todd E. Nolan, Cari McConeghy Nolan, Vicki A. R. Lopez

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 3-21-2019
STATE v. PING

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in which 

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie and Judge Jennifer B. Campbell joined.

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Michael Daniel Ping appeals his conviction and sentence for 

simple assault. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 This Court views the facts in the light most favorable to 

sustaining the conviction. State v. Pena, 235 Ariz. 277, 279 ¶ 5 (2014). In April 

2015, Ping started a romantic relationship with T.C., which lasted about 

four months. Over that time, T.C. kept some personal belongings at Ping’s

home, including clothing and medical equipment. Around 5:30 p.m. on 

August 30, T.C. met some friends at a restaurant to celebrate a friend’s 

birthday. During the birthday dinner, Ping sent T.C. text messages that 

“[s]tarted out very nice,” but later became “nasty and then aggressive.” The 

text messages between 8:17 p.m. and 12:15 a.m. stated:

Ping: Hope [you’re] feeling better [] (8:17 p.m.)

Ping: We finished dinner and shopping. Having an 

ice[d] tea and going home soon. Please wish [your 

friend] happy birthday from me too. (8:19 p.m.)

T.C.: Sounds nice. We just finished dinner and now we 

are on our way to [a] cigar bar [] I’ll call you in a little bit

(9:07 p.m.)

Ping: Okay Luv. (9:10 p.m.)

Ping: Think I’m going [to] clean up and chill till you get 

home. (9:13 p.m.)

Ping: Or call me [] maybe [we] could meet up. (9:27 

p.m.)

Ping: Never mind. Just checking on you. (11:55 p.m.)
STATE v. PING

Decision of the Court

3

Ping: Why are you so disrespectful? I’m done. (12:12 

a.m.)

Ping: I [deserve] better and this is the last straw. (12:13 

a.m.)

Ping: I don’t need this or want this shit. Go have your 

selfish fun. Bye. (12:14 a.m.)

Ping: Later, you deserve better. (12:15 a.m.)

¶3 T.C. left the birthday celebration around midnight, and she 

did not read Ping’s texts until she returned to her car. T.C. arrived at Ping’s 

house and found Ping sitting on a couch in the garage talking on a cell 

phone. When T.C. entered the garage, Ping became “verbally abusive,” 

accused her of “being with somebody,” and called her names. At that point, 

T.C. was “done with [the relationship]” and started to enter Ping’s home to 

retrieve her belongings. As she did so, Ping “stood up and got in [her] face,” 

began screaming and calling her names, and threw his phone on the floor. 

¶4 T.C. continued to enter the home through an internal door 

located within the garage, but Ping pushed the door and knocked T.C. 

against a wall inside the house. When T.C. turned around, Ping put his 

forearm on her throat and pinned her against the wall. She told Ping that 

she could not breathe, but he did not stop until she “passed out.” When T.C. 

regained consciousness, she found herself slumped down by the wall on 

the floor with Ping standing over her. T.C. started screaming and tried to 

get away from Ping by going up a stairway because she could not reach a 

door on the first floor. Ping grabbed T.C.’s legs, but she was able to break 

free and get up the stairs. 

¶5 T.C. entered a bedroom and tried to shut the door, but Ping 

“smashed” the door open. He then pinned T.C. onto a bed and again put 

his arm on her throat. T.C. was able to get Ping off of her by kicking at him, 

but she was unable to get away because Ping was by the door. Ping then 

grabbed T.C. by the shoulders and headbutted her two times in the face. 

During the second headbutt, T.C. moved her head to the side and Ping hit 

the side of her face near her temple. After the second headbutt, T.C. 

screamed, which caused Ping to “back[] up a bit.” At this point, Ping 

stopped his attacks. 

¶6 Thereafter, T.C. tried to retrieve her medical equipment in the 

garage, but she stopped when Ping “came at [her] again.” T.C. grabbed a 

vacuum cleaner and used it stop Ping’s advance by holding it between 
STATE v. PING

Decision of the Court

4

them. Ping then asked T.C. to go back into the house and to sleep in separate 

rooms so that they could talk about the event the next day. Believing that 

Ping had calmed down, T.C. fled to her car and immediately drove away. 

¶7 T.C. left Ping’s gated community, pulled over and called her

friends, told them what had happened, and met them at her boss’s house. 

After seeing T.C.’s injuries, her friends took her to a hospital. At the 

hospital, a nurse contacted the Chandler Police Department to report the 

domestic-violence incident, and officers were sent to the hospital. 

¶8 Officer Scott Lindblad met T.C. at about 4:00 a.m. He saw that 

T.C. had visible injuries to the left side of her face and neck and that she had 

bruises to her feet, knees, and elbows. Officer Lindblad called a forensic 

photographer to the hospital, and the photographer took photos of T.C.’s 

injuries. T.C. told Officer Lindblad that Ping had (1) punched the left side 

of her face multiple times; (2) choked her four separate times, but she “saw 

black” only one time; and (3) headbutted her two times in the face, but she 

did not specify where exactly on her face.

¶9 Detective George Arias met T.C. at the hospital around 5:00 

a.m. Detective Arias saw that T.C. had a “sad [and] upset” demeanor, and 

he noticed swelling on her face. Detective Arias took T.C. to a police station 

for an interview. She stated that she had been choked two times and “felt 

like she was going to black out” one time. She said that Ping had used his 

forehead to headbutt her face but did not specify which part of her face Ping 

had headbutted.

¶10 Thereafter, Detective Arias took T.C. to the Scottsdale Family 

Advocacy Center where a nurse conducted a forensic examination. The 

nurse charted and photographed T.C.’s injuries, and she found and 

documented 27 injuries, including contusions, abrasions, petechiae,

erythema, and tenderness in the bone between her breasts. The nurse found 

a contusion on T.C.’s inner lip, which T.C. attributed to Ping having 

headbutted her in the face. At the time, T.C. did not know how she had 

received the injury to her left temple. T.C. also stated that Ping had 

(1) slapped and punched her in the face multiple times, (2) choked her three 

times and made her “s[ee] black” two times, and (3) headbutted her. The 

police subsequently arrested Ping.

¶11 In October, Ping was indicted with two aggravated assaults, 

both class 4 felonies and domestic-violence offenses, and simple assault, a 

class 1 misdemeanor and domestic-violence offense. The State later 

dismissed the aggravated-assault counts, and the remaining count was the 
STATE v. PING

Decision of the Court

5

simple assault based on Ping’s headbutting. Because simple assault does 

not warrant a jury trial, the matter was tried to the court. See State ex rel. 

McDougall v. Strohson, 190 Ariz. 120, 121 (1997) (simple assault-domestic 

violence is not a jury-trial offense).

¶12 Before the trial began, Ping moved to preclude the State from 

presenting evidence of the dismissed counts, both of which alleged 

strangulation. The court ruled that the course of events, including the 

strangulation evidence, would help it determine what led to the alleged 

headbutting and that it would use that information for the limited purposes 

of credibility and context. It further noted that some of the State’s evidence 

would open the door to evidence Ping may present, which the court would 

be disinclined to exclude. 

¶13 At trial, the forensic nurse testified that T.C. claimed an injury 

to her inner lip was the result of one of Ping’s headbutts. She also opined

that a person could sustain an injury around the lip or mouth area from a 

headbutt. She testified that at the time of the exam, T.C. did not know how 

she received the injury to her temple. But the nurse provided possible 

explanations for why her report did not list causes for all 27 injuries that 

she documented, including the injury to T.C.’s temple. She explained that 

she does not ask her patients to demonstrate or recreate how each injury 

occurred and that the speed of an attack sometimes makes patients unable 

to remember how they received specific injuries. 

¶14 Ping offered several self-exculpatory statements during trial. 

He stated that T.C. arrived at his home while he was talking on the phone 

and had decided to end their relationship. He then asked T.C. to remove 

her belongings from his home. He testified that T.C. became agitated and 

upset and hit him in the face with a vacuum cleaner. He stated that other 

than trying to prevent himself from being hit by the vacuum cleaner, he 

never touched T.C. “in any combative form or aggressive manner 

whatsoever.” Ping also testified that he thought T.C. was disrespecting him 

the night of August 30 and that she had a history of being disrespectful to 

him. He denied, however, that her disrespect that night agitated him. 

¶15 The State impeached Ping’s version of the night during crossexamination. The State first showed Ping his texts throughout the night and 

noted the angry tone of his last messages to T.C. Ping then admitted that he 

had trained martial arts “on and off” his entire life, yet he was unable to 

prevent the vacuum cleaner from hitting his face. Last, Ping testified that 

T.C. had no injuries when she arrived at his home. 
STATE v. PING

Decision of the Court

6

¶16 Ping’s biomechanics expert witness attempted to impeach 

T.C.’s claimed injuries by testifying that Ping could not have inflicted T.C.’s 

injuries in the manner that she reported, including the injuries that resulted 

from Ping’s headbutts to her face. He acknowledged that T.C. claimed that 

she had suffered an injury to her inner lip from one of Ping’s headbutts, 

which the officers and nurse noted in their reports, but he opined that the 

injury was inconsistent with a headbutt. He later admitted, however, that 

Ping could have inflicted T.C.’s inner-lip injury by hitting her face with the

bone underlying his eyebrow rather than his forehead. 

¶17 The court found Ping guilty of simple assault and sentenced 

him to unsupervised probation for two years with domestic-violence 

conditions. Ping timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

1. Admission of Evidence

¶18 Ping argues that the court abused its discretion by allowing 

the State to present evidence regarding the strangulations underlying its 

two previously dismissed aggravated-assault charges. “The trial court has 

considerable discretion in determining the relevance and admissibility of 

evidence, and we will not disturb its ruling absent a clear abuse of that 

discretion.” State v. Rose, 231 Ariz. 500, 513 ¶ 62 (2013) (quoting State v. 

Amaya-Ruiz, 166 Ariz. 152, 167 (1990)). “Abuse of discretion is ‘an exercise 

of discretion which is manifestly unreasonable, exercised on untenable 

grounds or for untenable reasons.’” State v. Wassenaar, 215 Ariz. 565, 570 

¶ 11 (App. 2007) (quoting State v. Woody, 173 Ariz. 561, 563 (App. 1992)). 

This Court views “the evidence in the ‘light most favorable to its proponent, 

maximizing its probative value and minimizing its prejudicial effect[.]’” 

State v. Ortiz, 238 Ariz. 329, 333 ¶ 5 (App. 2015) (quoting State v. Harrison, 

195 Ariz. 28, 33 ¶ 21 (App. 1998)).

¶19 When “evidence is so intrinsic to the charged act as to not 

constitute an ‘other’ act[,]” Arizona Rule of Evidence (“Rule”) 404(b)–(c) 

does not apply. State v. Ferrero, 229 Ariz. 239, 242 ¶ 13 (2012). Evidence is 

intrinsic if it “(1) directly proves the charged act, or (2) is performed 

contemporaneously with and directly facilitates commission of the charged 

act.” Id. at 243 ¶ 20. 

¶20 Here, Ping’s strangulations occurred contemporaneously 

with his headbutts to T.C.’s face. Also, Ping’s strangulations escalated the 

situation to where T.C. felt the need to flee upstairs from Ping and to the 

bedroom where Ping headbutted her. Thus, Ping’s strangulations directly 
STATE v. PING

Decision of the Court

7

facilitated the headbutts that occurred in the bedroom. The strangulation

evidence meets the second prong of the Ferrero test, and Rule 404(b) does 

not apply. See id. at 242–43 ¶¶ 13, 20. As such, the court did not abuse its 

discretion by admitting the strangulation evidence.

¶21 Ping claims that the strangulation evidence was irrelevant 

and prejudicial. The State did not introduce the strangulation evidence to 

prove Ping’s propensity to commit criminal acts. Instead, the strangulation 

evidence was necessary to explain why T.C. was attempting to flee from 

Ping, why she ran upstairs to a bedroom, and why Ping headbutted T.C.’s 

face two times. Furthermore, the evidence was presented to a judge rather 

than a jury, and the judge explicitly stated that the strangulation evidence 

was relevant and used for the limited purposes of establishing credibility 

and context for why Ping would headbutt T.C. Therefore, the evidence was 

relevant and Ping suffered no prejudice. See State v. Arellano, 213 Ariz. 474, 

480 ¶ 23 n.5 (2006) (“A trial judge usually will not exclude evidence as 

unduly prejudicial when the trial is to the court.”). 

2. Sufficiency of the Evidence

¶22 Ping argues that insufficient evidence supports the court’s 

finding that he was guilty of simple assault. Sufficiency of the evidence is 

reviewed de novo. State v. Snider, 233 Ariz. 243, 245 ¶ 4 (App. 2013). This 

Court will reverse only if no substantial evidence supports the conviction. 

Id. “Substantial evidence is proof that ‘reasonable persons could accept as 

adequate . . . to support a conclusion of defendant’s guilt beyond a 

reasonable doubt.’” Id. (quoting State v. Bearup, 221 Ariz. 163, 167 ¶ 16 

(2009)). The trial court determines the weight of the evidence and the 

credibility of witnesses, and this Court does not reweigh the evidence. State 

v. Williams, 209 Ariz. 228, 231 ¶ 6 (App. 2004). 

¶23 Substantial evidence showed that Ping committed assault. As 

charged here, a person commits assault by “[i]ntentionally, knowingly or 

recklessly causing any physical injury to another person[.]” A.R.S. 

§ 13–1203(A)(1). At trial, T.C. testified that Ping headbutted her twice 

during their fight—once on her temple—and that Ping’s first headbutt 

caused the contusion to her inner lip. T.C. told Officer Lindblad and 

Detective Arias, who had responded to the hospital where she sought 

treatment for her injuries the night of the assault, that Ping had headbutted 

her in the face. The forensic nurse documented T.C.’s injured lip and a 

bruise and swelling on her temple, and the State admitted photographs of 

T.C.’s injured lip and temple. The nurse testified that T.C. claimed from the 

outset that one of Ping’s headbutts caused her inner-lip injury. The nurse 
STATE v. PING

Decision of the Court

8

also testified that a headbutt could cause the injury found on T.C.’s inner 

lip. Even Ping’s own biomechanics expert testified that Ping could have 

inflicted the lip injury by hitting T.C.’s face with the bone underlying his 

eyebrow. Therefore, substantial evidence supports Ping’s conviction for 

simple assault based on either headbutt.

¶24 Ping argues that T.C.’s statements to Officer Lindblad, 

Detective Arias, and the forensic nurse and T.C.’s testimony at trial were 

inconsistent. Ping notes that T.C. was inconsistent in stating where his 

hands were while he headbutted her, she did not tell the officers that “in 

the face” meant anything other than the front of her face, she did not 

remember how she suffered the temple injury when interviewed by the 

nurse, and she did not state that she had been headbutted on her temple 

until trial. Ping also argues that more weight should have been given to the 

biomechanics expert’s testimony, which he contends showed that the innerlip injury could not have been from a headbutt.

¶25 Ping’s argument regarding T.C.’s credibility is not for this 

Court to address. See Williams, 209 Ariz. at 231 ¶ 6. Thus, this argument 

fails. Likewise, the weight to give the evidence, such as the biomechanics 

expert’s testimony, is not for this Court to determine. See id. As such, this 

argument fails as well, especially when the biomechanics expert admitted 

that Ping could have inflicted the contusion to T.C.’s inner lip by hitting her 

face with the bone underlying his eyebrow, and the forensic nurse testified 

that a headbutt could cause the injury that T.C. suffered. 

CONCLUSION

¶26 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm.