Case Title: Reck v. Alabama

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1100640

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2011-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 06/30/2011
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
____________________
1100640
____________________
Ex parte State of Alabama
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
(In re: Timothy T. Reck
v.
State of Alabama)
(Baldwin Circuit Court, CC-05-625;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-09-1411)
STUART, Justice.
1100640
2
This Court granted the State's petition for a writ of
certiorari to determine whether sufficient evidence of the
element of "serious bodily injury" as defined as "serious and
protracted disfigurement" for purposes of a first-degree-
assault offense can be established by the testimony of a lay
witness or as a matter of law can be presented only through
medical testimony or the victim's testimony.  Specifically,
with regard to this case, the issue is whether a mother's
testimony concerning her child's suffering "serious and
protracted disfigurement" is sufficient evidence of the
serious-bodily-injury element of first-degree assault to
present the question to the jury.  The Court of Criminal
Appeals held that it was not.  Reck v. State, [Ms. CR-09-0411,
December 17, 2010] ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim. App. 2010).  We
reverse and remand. 
Facts
The evidence presented at trial, which was conducted in
March 2010, established that in October 2004 a two-vehicle
accident occurred on Highway 59 in Baldwin County.  Timothy T.
Reck, who was intoxicated at the time, drove his vehicle into
a vehicle being driven by Donna Loving. Loving's two sons were
1100640
As the Court of Criminal Appeals noted in its opinion,
1
"[a] keloid is a raised growth of fibrous scar tissue." Reck
v. State, ___ So. 3d at ___ n.1.
3
passengers in the vehicle.  Loving testified that after the
accident she and her eight-year-old son were removed from her
vehicle and flown to a hospital.  She stated that her son's
face and upper body were cut severely by broken glass in the
accident.  According to Loving, her son suffered a gash on the
back of his head, his left ear was almost cut off, and his
shoulder was cut by a two- to three-inch piece of glass.  When
asked during her testimony if her son had any noticeable
disfigurement from the accident, Loving stated that the cut on
his shoulder had formed a painful keloid  and that he had seen
1
a surgeon about its removal.  Additionally, she explained that
her son's face has numerous little scars caused by shattered
glass that had nicked his face.  
The medical records of the hospital at which Loving's son
was treated following the accident were admitted into
evidence.  Those records indicate that Loving's son was
treated for two lacerations on the left shoulder, one of which
was one centimeter and the other of which was seven
centimeters.  At the conclusion of the evidence, the State
1100640
4
stipulated that the injuries to Loving's son were not "life-
threatening."
Standard of Review 
When an appellate court is presented with a pure question
of law, the court's review is do novo.  Ex parte Key, 890 So.
2d 1056, 1059 (Ala. 2003). 
Discussion
The State presents an issue of first impression:
Whether, to establish a prima facie case of first-degree
assault pursuant to § 13A-6-20(a)(5), Ala. Code 1975, the
State, to present sufficient evidence of the element that the
defendant caused "serious bodily injury" as defined as
"serious and protracted disfigurement," must present either
medical testimony and/or testimony from the victim.  The Court
of Criminal Appeals held that "Loving's testimony regarding
her son's injuries, without medical testimony or [her son's]
testimony, was insufficient to establish that [her son]
suffered a 'serious physical injury.'" ___ So. 3d at ____.
"A person commits the crime of assault in the first
degree if ... [w]hile driving under the influence of alcohol
or a controlled substance or any combination thereof in
1100640
5
violation of § 32-5A-191 he causes serious bodily injury to
the person of another with a motor vehicle." § 13A-6-20(a)(5),
Ala. Code 1975.  In Hemrick v. State, 922 So. 2d 967, 969
(Ala. Crim. App. 2005), the Court of Criminal Appeals held
that "[t]he term "serious physical injury" is the equivalent
of the term "serious bodily injury."  "Serious physical
injury" is defined in the Criminal Code as a "[p]hysical
injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which
causes serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted
impairment of health, or protracted loss or impairment of the
function of any bodily organ." § 13A-1-2(14), Ala. Code 1975.
In Hunter v. State, 866 So. 2d 1177 (Ala. Crim. App.
2003), the Court of Criminal Appeals discussed "serious and
protracted 
disfigurement" 
in 
relation 
to 
the 
serious-physical-
injury element of the offense of first-degree assault,
stating:
"Here, we focus on the 'serious and protracted
disfigurement' element of [§ 13A-6-20, Ala. Code
1975]. 
 
'Disfigurement' 
is 
defined 
as 
'[a]n
impairment or injury to the appearance of a person
or thing.'  Black's Law Dictionary 480 (7th ed.
1999).  'Protracted' is defined as 'prolong[ed] in
time 
or 
space.' 
 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary. (10th ed. 1999). ...
1100640
6
"Most 
Alabama 
cases 
discussing 
'serious 
physical
injury' concern 'physical injury which creates a
substantial risk of death, or ... protracted
impairment 
of 
health, 
or 
protracted 
loss 
or
impairment of the function of any bodily organ.'
Thus, there is little guidance in Alabama caselaw
concerning what constitutes a serious and protracted
disfigurement.  Some cases discussing serious and
protracted 
disfigurement 
also 
discuss 
the
substantial risk of death or protracted impairment
of health. See Lee v. State, 727 So. 2d 887 (Ala.
Crim. App. 1998)(in which this Court implied that
the mere presence of a scar resulting from a gunshot
wound will not elevate 'physical injury' to 'serious
physical injury').  Other cases do not indicate
which part of the statute is implicated.  See Pope
v. State, 586 So. 2d 1003 (Ala. Crim. App.
1991)(holding that testimony that the victim was
hospitalized for three days and was unable to work
for one and one-half months and that staples had to
be used to hold wound together, along with victim's
exhibition of his scars to the jury, was sufficient
to present a jury question on the issue of the
existence of serious physical injury).
"Other 
jurisdictions 
whose 
definition 
of 
serious
physical injury, like Alabama's, include a serious
and protracted disfigurement have found a scar
sufficient to constitute serious physical injury.
See State v. Nival, 42 Conn. App. 307, 678 A.2d 1008
(1996)(where 
jury 
observed 
the 
victim's
one-half-inch facial scar and evidence was presented
that the scar was permanent there was sufficient
evidence to create jury question as to whether the
victim had suffered a serious physical injury);
State v. Anderson, 370 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. Ct. App.
1985)(a long scar present two and one-half years
after 
the 
injury 
was 
a 
serious 
permanent
disfigurement); State v. Bledsoe, 920 S.W.2d 538
(Mo. Ct. App. 1996)(a one-and-one-half-inch cut on
the 
victim's 
chin 
leading 
to 
scarring, 
a
one-and-one-half-inch scar on lower lip, and a scar
1100640
7
between 
her 
eyes 
constituted 
serious
disfigurements); State v. Pettis, 748 S.W.2d 793
(Mo. Ct. App. 1988)(holding that serious physical
injury as applied to first-degree assault would
include a four-inch permanent scar as a result of a
knife wound); People v. Wade, 187 A.D.2d 687, 590
N.Y.S.2d 245 (1992)(a scar that was visible eight
months after victim's face was cut with a razor from
ear to mouth was serious permanent disfigurement);
People v. Greene, 488 N.Y.S.2d 812, 111 A.D.2d 183
(1985)(serious physical injury includes a knife
wound on the victim's neck that required 120
stitches to close and that resulted in a substantial
keloid scar)."
866 So. 2d at 1179-80.
Consistent with the foregoing, we conclude that testimony
from a lay witness can be sufficient to establish this element
for submission of the case to a jury.  "Disfigurement" of the
human body is a condition that competent persons are capable
of observing and that requires no special skill to detect.
Likewise, a competent person with firsthand knowledge of the
victim's injury, recovery, and disfigurement is capable of
testifying as to the seriousness  of the disfigurement and the
passage of time concerning the disfigurement.  Therefore, we
conclude that a lay witness who has observed the victim's
wound and resulting scar and has personal knowledge of the
victim's recovery from the injury is capable of presenting
sufficient evidence, creating a question for the jury, with
1100640
8
regard to whether a victim has suffered a "serious and
protracted disfigurement."  Although in some cases the
testimony of a lay witness regarding the victim's "serious and
protracted disfigurement" may not be the strongest or most
persuasive evidence of this element, we cannot conclude that
testimony from a lay witness as to that element is as a matter
of law insufficient to establish prima facie evidence of this
element.  Cf.  United States v. Muyet, 994 F. Supp. 501, 519
(S.D.N.Y. 1998)(holding that even though the victims did not
testify as to the precise nature of their injuries and the
government did not provide any expert medical testimony, the
circumstances surrounding an incident could have led a jury to
conclude that the victims suffered serious physical injury).
In light of our conclusion that sufficient evidence of
the element of "serious bodily injury" in the form of a
"serious and protracted disfigurement" can be established by
testimony from a lay witness, the Court of Criminal Appeals
erred in rejecting Loving's testimony as to her son's injuries
and in holding that because neither medical testimony nor
Loving's son testified the State failed to present sufficient
1100640
9
evidence that Loving's son had suffered a serious bodily
injury. 
Conclusion  
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of
Criminal Appeals is reversed and this case remanded for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cobb, C.J., and Woodall, Bolin, Parker, Murdock, and
Shaw, JJ., concur.
Main and Wise, JJ., recuse themselves.*
*Justice Main and Justice Wise were members of the Court
of Criminal Appeals when that court considered this case.