Blea v. State
No. PD-0245-15
Case Summary written by Eric Clinton, Staff Member.
JUDGE ALCALA delivered the opinion of the court.
In July 2010, Juan Blea, the appellant, went to his parents’ apartment in order to visit his daughter and her mother. When he arrived, the appellant noticed a “hickey” on the mother’s neck. After being told that the mark came from another man the night before, appellant became angry and threatened to kill the mother and began to physically assault her. The victim was unable to specifically describe the assault, but felt as if “something had been broken or injured during the assault.”
When the appellant’s parents returned home, they observed that the victim was in pain and called the police. The responding officer called for an ambulance to take the victim to the hospital, where she stayed for four days. Her injuries included a collapsed lung, “lacerated liver, two rib fractures, and a fractured maxillary sinus bone.” The appellant was convicted of first-degree aggravated assault of a family member.
The elements of first-degree aggravated assault of a family member require evidence that (1) the actor used a deadly weapon during the assault and (2) the actor caused serious bodily injury to a family member. Further, the court recognizes “serious bodily injury” as being “bodily injury that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes death, serious permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily organ.”
The court of appeals remanded the case, finding that that the evidence failed to establish that the victim suffered serious bodily injury. The court’s majority explained that the victim’s collapsed lung and lacerated liver did not show that she faced a substantial risk of death. Despite noting that both of those injuries are potentially life threatening, the court of appeals held that there was no evidence that the victim, in this particular situation, ever faced a substantial risk of death.
The state challenged this ruling, claiming the jury could have inferred, from the totality of the evidence, that the victim faced a substantial risk of death.
Issue: How should the court weigh the effects of medical treatment when determining whether particular injuries constitute serious bodily injury?
The Court of Criminal Appeals noted that there were inconsistencies in the court’s precedent. For one, a vast majority of the court’s decisions have held that the court should focus on the degree of risk posed by the injury, without regard for the effect of medical treatment. In one case, however, a plurality of the court held that the effects of medical treatment should be taken into effect.
The court found three reasons why it should disregard the plurality opinion. First, the plain language of the statute—“creates a substantial risk of death”—refers only to the injury caused by the actor, and does not give any consideration to medical treatment. Second, the plurality opinion is an isolated case that is inconsistent with other Court of Criminal Appeals holdings. Finally, the court notes that a plurality opinion is not binding precedent. Thus, courts should not consider the “amelioration or exacerbation of an injury by actions not attributable to the offender, such as medical treatment” when evaluating whether the victim suffered serious bodily injury.
After determining that courts should give no weight to the effect that medical treatment had on the injury, the Court of Criminal Appeals had to consider whether a jury could have rationally found that the victim faced a substantial risk of death. The court noted a nurse’s testimony that “lung injuries such as these can affect a persons blood pressure and ‘vital signs.’” Additionally, the nurse described the victims liver injury as one that could cause a patient to “bleed to death very quickly.” Due to this evidence, the Court of Criminal Appeals concluded that the evidence was sufficient to show that the victim suffered serious bodily injury and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.