Title: MICHAEL DAVID KELLY V. THE STATE OF WYOMING

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

MICHAEL DAVID KELLY V. THE STATE OF WYOMING2007 WY 45153 P.3d 926Case Number: 06-37Decided: 03/15/2007
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
MICHAEL 
DAVID KELLY,

 
 
Appellant

(Defendant),

 
 
v.

 
 
THE 
STATE OF WYOMING,

 
 
Appellee

(Plaintiff).

 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofCampbellCounty

The 
Honorable John Perry, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

Ken 
Koski, State Public Defender, PDP; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel; Tina N. 
Kerin, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel.

 
 

Representing 
Appellee:

            
Patrick 
J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael 
Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Dana J. Lent, Assistant Attorney 
General.                   

 
 
Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, KITE, and BURKE, JJ.

 
 

KITE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1] 
     Michael David 
Kelly was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and battery in violation of 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2005).  On appeal, he claims the evidence was 
insufficient to show that he caused "serious bodily injury" as required by the 
statute.  He also claims 
prosecutorial misconduct occurred during the State's closing argument.  We hold the evidence was not sufficient 
to show serious bodily injury as that term is defined in the statute.  On that basis, we reverse his aggravated 
assault conviction, order entry of a battery conviction and remand the case to 
the district court for re-sentencing on the battery conviction.    

            

ISSUE

 
 
[¶2]      The determinative 
issue is whether sufficient evidence was presented to show Mr. Kelly caused 
serious bodily injury as required for an aggravated assault 
conviction.

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]  On March 27, 2005, at approximately 9:30 
p.m., Brett Osmon was awakened from his sleep by a knock at the door of his 
trailer house in Campbell 
County, Wyoming.  He answered the door and found two men 
on his doorstep.  They threatened 
him and demanded money.  Mr. Osmon 
refused their demands and tried to shut the door.  The two men forced their way inside and 
began beating Mr. Osmon. One of the men, later identified as Mr. Kelly, used his 
fists to knock Mr. Osmon to the floor while the other man repeatedly struck him 
in the back with the end of a baseball bat each time he tried to stand.  During the assault, Mr. Kelly picked up 
an iron grate from the stove top and hit Mr. Osmon on the head with it. 

 
 
[¶4]  After the attack, the two men left Mr. 
Osmon lying on the floor and departed.  
Mr. Osmon got up off the floor, went to the window, looked out and saw 
the two men get into a red car and drive away.  Mr. Osmon went into the bathroom, 
cleaned himself up and then went back to bed.

 
 
[¶5]  Early the next morning, Mr. Osmon called 
the Campbell County Sheriff's Office.  
Deputy Randy Parker took the call.  
Mr. Osmon informed him two men had come to his home the night before, 
demanded money and assaulted him. 

 
 
[¶6]  Deputy Parker arrived at Mr. Osmon's 
home at approximately 7:00 a.m.  He 
observed footprints by the steps leading to the front door and footprints and 
scuff marks on the floor inside the trailer suggestive of a struggle.  In the kitchen area, he saw blood 
spatters on the wall and the stove, and a grate from the stove lying on the 
floor.  The grate appeared to have 
blood on it.  The stove looked like 
it had been knocked out of place during a struggle.  Outside the home, Deputy Parker observed 
tire tracks and acceleration marks in the road leading from Mr. Osmon's 
home.  

 
 
[¶7]      Tony Seeman, a 
criminal investigator for the Campbell County Sheriff's Office, was the lead 
investigator on the scene.  He 
arrived at Mr. Osmon's home shortly after Deputy Parker.  Officer Seeman looked at Mr. Osmon's 
wounds and persuaded him to go to the emergency room to be checked for internal 
injuries and have the wounds cleaned.  
From Mr. Osmon's description of his attackers, Officer Seeman was able to 
identify Mr. Kelly as a possible suspect.  
During a photo line-up at the sheriff's office later that morning, Mr. 
Osmon identified Mr. Kelly as possibly being one of the men who attacked 
him.   Mr. Kelly was arrested 
and charged with aggravated assault and battery in violation of § 6-2-502(a)(i), 
which provides:  

 
 

(a)    A person is guilty of aggravated assault 
and battery if he:

 
 

(i)     
Causes 
serious bodily injury to another intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under 
circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; 

 
 
[¶8]  At trial the jury was instructed that in 
order to find Mr. Kelly guilty of aggravated assault and battery, it had to find 
the State had proved the following elements beyond a reasonable 
doubt:

  

1.         
On or about the 27th day of March, 
2005;

2.         
In Campbell County, 
Wyoming;

3.         
The defendant, Michael David Kelly;

4.         
Intentionally, under circumstances which showed an extreme indifference 
for human life;

5.         
Caused serious bodily injury to Brett Osmon.

 
 
The jury 
was also instructed that for purposes of aggravated assault, the term "serious 
bodily injury" means:  "bodily 
injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes miscarriage, 
severe disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any 
bodily member or organ."  Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
6-1-104(a)(x) (LexisNexis 2005).  

 
 
[¶9]  The jury was instructed that if it 
concluded the State did not prove all of the elements of aggravated assault 
beyond a reasonable doubt, it should consider whether the evidence proved the 
lesser included offenses of battery or assault.  With respect to these lesser included 
offenses, the jury was instructed it could find Mr. Kelly guilty of "assault" if 
it found the State proved he unlawfully attempted to cause bodily injury to Mr. 
Osmon or "battery" if the State proved he intentionally caused bodily injury to 
Mr. Osmon.  The jury was instructed 
that for purposes of these offenses, "bodily injury" is defined in § 
6-1-104(a)(i)  as "physical pain, 
illness or any impairment of physical condition."  

 
 
[¶10]  After a trial lasting a day and a half, 
the jury found Mr. Kelly guilty of aggravated assault and battery.  The district court sentenced him to a 
term of three to eight years in an institution designated by the Wyoming 
Department of Corrections with credit for 169 days served prior to 
sentencing.                    

 
 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 
 
[¶11]  When reviewing the sufficiency of the 
evidence, this Court accepts as true the State's evidence and affords it those 
inferences which may be reasonably and fairly drawn from it.  Jones v. State, 2006 WY 40, ¶ 9, 132 P.3d 162, 165 (Wyo. 2006).  We do 
not consider conflicting evidence or inferences that can be drawn from such 
evidence.  Id.  Our duty is to determine whether a 
quorum of reasonable and rational individuals would, or even could, have come to 
the same result as the jury actually did.  
Id.

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 

1.                              
Sufficiency 
of the Evidence

 
 
[¶12]  In his first issue, Mr. Kelly claims the 
State's evidence was insufficient to show he caused Mr. Osmon "serious bodily 
injury".  He asserts the evidence 
presented did not show the injuries he inflicted upon Mr. Osmon created a 
substantial risk of death or caused severe disfigurement or loss or impairment 
of any bodily member or organ.  
Without such evidence, he contends, the conviction cannot 
stand.

 
 
[¶13]  The State argues the evidence was 
sufficient to show Mr. Kelly caused serious bodily injury.  The State points to the evidence showing 
Mr. Kelly beat Mr. Osmon with his fists and hit him on the head with an iron 
stove grate, causing profuse bleeding and permanent scarring.  The State asserts this Court previously 
held in State v. Woodward, 69 Wyo. 
262, 240 P.2d 1157, 1160 (Wyo. 1952), albeit under a different statute,1  that evidence of profuse bleeding, 
bruising and a head laceration resulting from a beating was sufficient to 
support an aggravated assault conviction.  
The State also cites Lucero v. 
State, 14 P.3d 920, 923 (Wyo. 2000) in which we said the term "serious 
bodily injury" does not have a technical legal meaning so different from its 
ordinary meaning that an instruction defining the term for a jury is 
necessary.          

 
 
[¶14]  The difficulty with the State's 
assertions is that the current statute specifically identifies the sort of 
bodily injury a defendant must cause in order to be convicted of aggravated 
assault under § 6-2-502(a)(i).  
Pursuant to the definition of serious bodily injury applicable to the 
aggravated assault statute found in § 6-1-104(a)(x), the injury must:  1) create a substantial risk of death; 
2) cause miscarriage; 3) cause severe disfigurement; or 4) cause protracted loss 
or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ. 

 
 
[¶15]  This Court has specifically considered 
whether injuries constituted "serious bodily injury" within the meaning of the 
statutes in two cases.  In O'Brien v. State, 2002 WY 63, 45 P.3d 225 (Wyo. 2002), the State claimed the victim was beaten so savagely that his 
life was endangered and his injuries created a substantial risk of death.  The State presented medical testimony 
showing the victim's jaw was broken at the back of the joint, a break that 
rarely results from a blow from a fist.  
The State also presented medical testimony indicating the break required 
surgery to prevent the victim's tongue from blocking his airways.  We held this evidence was sufficient to 
support the jury's determination that the defendant caused serious bodily 
injury.   

 
 
[¶16]  In Cazier v. State, 2006 WY 153, 148 P.3d 23 (Wyo. 2006), the State presented evidence that the victim was hospitalized 
for several days after being whipped with a cable.  The State also presented medical 
testimony indicating the injuries were "extremely remarkable" and caused 
chemical abnormalities in the victim's body. Additionally, the State presented 
photographs showing numerous wounds on the victim's head, face and body and the 
victim showed the jury the scars that still existed eight months after the 
assault.  We held the jury could 
have concluded from the evidence that the victim had, at a minimum, suffered 
severe disfigurement; therefore, the State met its burden of proving the 
defendant caused serious bodily injury. 

 
 
[¶17]  Under the particular facts presented in 
O'Brien and Cazier, we held rare, remarkable 
injuries that required surgery or resulted in inpatient hospitalization and 
scarring constituted serious bodily injuries within the meaning of § 
6-2-502(a)(i).  Although Mr. Osmon 
was left with a scar, his injuries did not result in inpatient hospitalization 
or surgery.  Also, there was no 
testimony, as there was in O'Brien, 
suggesting Mr. Osmon's injuries were life threatening. 

 
 
[¶18]  Additionally, the manner in which Mr. 
Osmon and the emergency room responded raises questions about the seriousness of 
his injuries.  Mr. Osmon cleaned his 
wounds and went back to bed after the assault.  He testified he did not think he was 
seriously injured at the time.  He 
sought medical treatment only when Officer Seeman persuaded him to do so.  At the emergency room, his wounds were 
cleaned, he was given an antibiotic and he was released.  His wounds did not require stitches, 
inpatient hospitalization, surgery or follow-up medical treatment.  He suffered no broken bones.  The scar on his scalp left by the stove 
grate was above his hairline and no evidence was presented showing it was 
readily visible at the time of trial.   

 
 
[¶19]  Under the circumstances, we have no 
choice but to conclude the evidence did not support a verdict finding Mr. Kelly 
caused Mr. Osman serious bodily injury as the term is defined in our 
statute.  No evidence was presented 
showing the injuries inflicted on Mr. Osmon created a substantial risk of death 
or caused severe disfigurement or loss or impairment of function of a bodily 
organ or member.2   While there is no question about 
the savageness of the attack, the nature of the attack is not the focus of the 
inquiry under the language the Wyoming legislature has chosen to employ.  Instead, under Wyoming's statutory 
language, the focus of the inquiry is the nature of the injuries inflicted.  Ferocious as the attack may have been, 
the injuries Mr. Osmon sustained did not result in serious bodily injury within 
the meaning of the aggravated assault statute.   

 
 
[¶20]  Our holding is in accord with the 
results reached in other jurisdictions sharing the same or substantially similar 
statutory language.  To sustain a 
conviction for aggravated assault, the vast majority of cases from these 
jurisdictions require evidence showing the injury created a substantial risk of 
death or caused severe disfigurement or protracted impairment of a bodily 
function or member.  In State v. Pheng, 2002 ME 40, 791 A.2d 925 
(Me. 2002), for example, the State presented evidence showing the victim was 
bleeding and unconscious, was transported to the hospital by ambulance, remained 
hospitalized for several days, missed the first quarter of school because of his 
injuries and could not eat solid food for several months after the attack.  The court held the evidence was 
sufficient to show serious bodily injury within the meaning 
of the Maine 
statute.3  

 
 
[¶21]  Similarly, in Fleming v. State, 604 So. 2d 280, 292 
(Miss. 1992), the court held the evidence was sufficient to show serious bodily 
injury under Section 210.0 of the Model Penal Code (1980)4 where the victim was hospitalized 
for four days; he suffered a laceration of the scalp requiring sutures, a 
non-displaced fracture of the left jaw bone and a comminuted fracture of the 
left forearm requiring surgery to attach a compression plate and perform a bone 
graft; and he was unable to work for four weeks.  See also State v. Flores, 1998 MT 328, 974 P.2d 124 (Mont. 1998) (holding the victim suffered a serious bodily injury where the 
evidence showed he sustained a wide, deep, gouge-wound to his right forearm 
exposing torn muscle, tissue, and bone; the injury precluded him from working in 
his pre-injury occupation; and he underwent physical therapy and, at the time of 
trial, still could not make a closed fist); Commonwealth v. Lewis, 2006 PA Super 
314, 911 A.2d 558 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (holding the evidence was sufficient to 
sustain the conviction for aggravated assault where 
the defendant punched the victim in the stomach and face; the 
victim was in an unconscious guarded condition in the emergency room 
after being intubated and placed on a ventilator, had multiple facial 
lacerations many of which penetrated the muscle tissue down to the facial bones, 
and chip fractures to her cheekbone; she was hospitalized for nine days; blood 
was drained from her stomach to prevent aspiration pneumonia; her wounds were 
sutured; she needed someone to care for her for a month; she could not eat 
solids until the stitches were removed; she missed work for three months; and 
she still had scars on her face at the time of trial.)

 
 
[¶22]  Of equal significance to our conclusion, 
are cases from jurisdictions having similar statutory language to Wyoming where courts have 
held injuries did not constitute serious bodily injuries.  In Moore v. State, 739 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. 
Crim. App. 1987), for example, the defendant hit the victim in the face and 
stabbed him in the back with a knife.  
After the assault, the victim went home and laid down on the couch.  When he got up from the couch, he 
noticed blood in the spot where he had been lying.  The police were notified and they 
convinced the victim to seek treatment.  
He was taken by ambulance to the emergency room where he was treated and 
released.  The court held the 
evidence was insufficient to show he sustained serious bodily injury because 
there was no showing the injury was life threatening or caused permanent 
disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily 
member or organ.  See also State v. Kane, 762 A.2d 677 (N.J. Super. 
Ct. App. Div. 2000) (holding that victim who received six stitches over her left 
eye and a broken nose when she was struck in the face did not sustain "serious 
bodily injury").     

 
 
[¶23]  The above cases are representative of 
the many cases in which courts have considered whether an injury constituted 
"serious bodily injury" within the meaning of statutes containing language 
similar to § 6-1-104(a)(x).  To 
support a conviction for aggravated assault, nearly all of the cases require 
injuries significantly more serious than those Mr. Osmon sustained.  Given the express language contained in 
our statute defining serious bodily injury as an injury creating a substantial 
risk of death or causing severe disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment 
of the function of any bodily member or organ, we hold the evidence was not 
sufficient to support Mr. Kelly's conviction for aggravated assault.  Our holding on this issue makes it 
unnecessary to address Mr. Kelly's claim of prosecutorial 
misconduct.

 
 
[¶24]  When we reverse a conviction for an 
offense, and the jury verdict supports conviction of a lesser-included offense, 
we have the authority to order re-sentencing on the lesser-included 
offense.  Goodwine v. State, 764 P.2d 680 684 
(Wyo. 1988); Simonds v. State, 762 P.2d 1189, 1193 
(Wyo. 
1988).  In this case, the district 
court appropriately instructed the jury on the offense of battery as a 
lesser-included offense of aggravated assault.  The evidence presented at trial was 
sufficient to support a jury verdict finding Mr. Kelly guilty of battery.  Therefore, we set aside the aggravated 
assault conviction, order entry of a battery conviction and remand to the 
district court for re-sentencing on the battery conviction.     

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 

1Woodward, 240 P.2d  at 1159, 
involved § 9-210 Wyo. Comp. Stat. 1945, which defined aggravated assault and 
battery as follows:  "If any person 
shall unlawfully and maliciously inflict upon another person, either with or 
without any weapon or instrument, any grievous bodily harm, or shall unlawfully 
and maliciously cut, stab or wound any other person, the person so offending 
shall be fined' etc."  

 
 

2In closing, 
the State argued that skin is the human body's primary organ and the blow to Mr. 
Osmon's head with the stove grate caused permanent scarring and impaired the 
skin.  However, no evidence was 
presented showing the blow caused "severe" disfigurement or "protracted loss or 
impairment of the function" of Mr. Osmon's skin.  Absent such evidence, the State simply 
did not prove the assault caused serious bodily 
injury.

       

3The Maine 
statute defines "serious bodily injury" for purposes of aggravated assault 
as:  "bodily injury which creates a 
substantial risk of death or which causes serious, 
permanent disfigurement 
or loss or substantial impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, 
or extended convalescence necessary for recovery of physical health." 17-A 
M.R.S.A. § 2(23) (1983).

 
 

4Section 
210.0 defines "serious bodily 
injury" as "bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of 
death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, 
or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or 
organ."