FILED

February 11, 1998

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

JANUARY SESSION, 1998

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9701-CR-00037

)

Appellee, )

) DAVIDSON COUNTY

V. ) 

) HON. THOMAS H. SHRIVER, 

) JUDGE

CHRISTOPHER L. PARKER, ) 

)

Appellant. ) (AGGRAVATED ASSAULT) 

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE APPELLEE:

F. MICHIE GIBSON, JR. JOHN KNOX WALKUP 

1416 Parkway Towers Attorney General & Reporter

404 James Robertson Parkway

Nashville, TN 37219 DARYL J. BRAND 

Assistant Attorney General

2nd Floor, Cordell Hull Building

425 Fifth Avenue North 

Nashville, TN 37243

VICTOR S. JOHNSON, III

District Attorney General 

PAMELA ANDERSON

Assistant District Attorney General

200 Washington Square, Suite 500

222 Second Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37201-1649

OPINION FILED ________________________

AFFIRMED 

THOMAS T. WOODALL, JUDGE
-2-

OPINION

The Defendant, Christopher L. Parker, appeals as of right his conviction

following a jury trial in the Davidson County Criminal Court. Defendant was

convicted of aggravated assault by reckless conduct, a Class D felony. In the

indictment, Defendant was charged with aggravated assault by intentional or

knowing conduct, a Class C felony. Following the proof at trial, the trial court

instructed the jury on the lesser grade offense of aggravated assault by reckless

conduct, and the jury convicted Defendant of the Class D felony. On appeal, the

Defendant (1) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction

and (2) argues that aggravated assault by reckless conduct was not a crime at the

time the offense was committed, therefore the trial court erred by charging the jury

on the lesser grade offense. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

When an accused challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence, the

standard is whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the

prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the

crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979).

On appeal, the State is entitled to the strongest legitimate view of the evidence and

all inferences therefrom. State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W .2d 832, 835 (Tenn. 1978).

Because a verdict of guilt removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with

a presumption of guilt, the accused has the burden in this court of illustrating why the

evidence is insufficient to support the verdict returned by the trier of fact. State v.

Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982); State v. Grace, 493 S.W.2d 474, 476

(Tenn. 1973).
-3-

Questions concerning the credibility of the witnesses, the weight and value to

be given the evidence, as well as all factual issues raised by the evidence, are

resolved by the trier of fact, not this court. State v. Pappas, 754 S.W.2d 620, 623

(Tenn. Crim. App.), perm. to appeal denied, id. (Tenn. 1987). Nor may this court

reweigh or reevaluate the evidence. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d at 835. A jury verdict

approved by the trial judge accredits the State’s witnesses and resolves all conflicts

in favor of the State. Grace, 493 S.W.2d at 476.

The Defendant argues that the injuries sustained by the victim in this case do

not constitute “serious bodily injury” and, therefore, the verdict cannot support a

finding of reckless aggravated assault. Under Tennessee Code Annotated section

39-13-102(a)(2), a person who “recklessly commits an assault as defined in § 39-13-

101(a)(1), and causes serious bodily injury to another” commits the offense of

aggravated assault. An assault is defined as “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly

caus[ing] bodily injury to another.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-101(a)(1).

The Defendant contests the sufficiency of the evidence only as to the proof

regarding the extent of the victim’s bodily injuries. As less than the full record was

sufficient to convey a fair, accurate and complete account of those issues that are

the bases of this appeal, the record for this court is condensed from the actual trial

proceedings. Tenn. R. App. P. 24(a). The proof showed that the Defendant and

others assaulted the victim, Charles Williams, on the night of October 30, 1993 at

the Family Inn motel in Nashville. During the assault, Williams was hit with either

a fist or a bottle across the bridge of the nose. As a result of the attack,

Williams described his injuries as a broken nose, shattered and displaced, a big cut

on the bridge of his nose and a missing front tooth. He described his injuries from
-4-

the assault as “very painful,” and stated that the pain continued for ten (10) days.

He was transported by ambulance to the Summit Medical Center in Donelson.

Williams described that twice a day for several months following the assault, he had

to stand in front of the mirror and push his nose back and forth to try to line up his

nose so that it would heal correctly. The swelling did not completely subside until

one (1) year after the assault. Including a root canal, Williams had several surgeries

performed to treat these injuries, including plastic surgery on his nose. Williams still

has a scar on his nose. 

Dr. Debra Holt is an emergency medicine physician at Summit Medical

Center. She treated the victim on October 30, 1993. Initially, Holt noticed that

Williams had a swollen nose, swelling and bruising around the left eye and cheek

area, and some bleeding from the nose. The victim suffered from a periorbital

contusion, which is bruising around the eye with swelling. There was a cut across

the nose, almost an inch long. The bleeding from that cut had been significant.

Even before performing x-rays, it was obvious that the victim’s nose was broken.

The nose was deviated to the right side of his face, swollen and flattened. The

victim was missing his left front central incisor tooth, which had been broken off

totally to the gum. Holt described this injury as a “true emergency” as certain serious

complications can result from that injury very quickly if the victim does not visit a

dentist. The tooth could die from loss of blood supply or from an abscess.

Dr. Holt specifically described the tooth injury as “very painful for him that

night.” When Holt described the victim’s severe nasal fracture with much deformity,

she stated that it was broken into several pieces. Holt described this particular type

of broken nose as “severe” and a “very painful type fracture.” 
-5-

The Defendant contends that the medical proof at trial did not support the

findings of the necessary elements of aggravated assault as according to the statute.

He argues that the broken nose and lost tooth do not rise to the level of serious

bodily injury. In support of his argument, the Defendant cites a recent case in which

this court held that the evidence was insufficient to find serious bodily injury

necessary for an especially aggravated robbery conviction. See State v. Sims, 909

S.W.2d 46 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1995).

Serious bodily injury is defined in Tennessee Code Annotated section

39-11-106 as a bodily injury involving substantial risk of death, protracted

unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted or obvious disfigurement or

protracted or substantial impairment of a function of a bodily member, organ or

mental faculty. (Emphasis added). In Sims, the court held that the loss of the

victim’s teeth could constitute protracted disfigurement, so long as the loss is proven

to have been caused by the criminal incident beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 49.

The evidence clearly supports that the loss of the victim’s tooth was caused by the

incident, and the Defendant does not dispute that point. A recent case of this court

has upheld a conviction requiring proof of serious bodily injury based upon Sims and

the victim’s loss of two teeth as constituting protracted or obvious disfigurement.

See State v. John Wayne Blue, No. 02C01-9604-CC-00124, Madison County (Tenn.

Crim. App., at Jackson, May 30, 1997) (No Rule 11 application filed).

In addition to the loss of the victim’s tooth and the obvious disfigurement, the

victim sustained various severe cuts and bruises to his face. For the laceration, the

victim required stitches and eventually needs plastic surgery to correct the distortion

to his face. His nose was broken into several pieces. The nose was actually
-6-

deviated to the right side of the victim’s face, requiring plastic surgery to correct this

obvious disfigurement and the damage to his nasal cavities. The victim is still

unable to breath norm ally through his nostrils and will need further surgery. In Sims,

neither stitches for the victim’s lacerations nor plastic surgery for her broken nose

was necessary for treatment of her injuries. Sims, 909 S.W.2d at 49.

In the light most favorable to the State, we find that a rational trier of fact could

have found the essential elements of aggravated assault beyond a reasonable doubt

based upon the loss of the victim’s tooth, the scar on his face, and the protracted

disfigurem ent of his nose. See State v. Sisk, No. 03C01-9410-CR-00367, slip op.

at 9, Cocke County (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Jan. 17, 1997), perm. to appeal

denied, (Tenn. 1997). This issue has no merit.

The Defendant also argues that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on

the lesser grade offense of reckless aggravated assault. Defendant alleges that the

statute for that offense was not in effect at the time the crime was committed. While

the Defendant failed to include the charge to the jury in the record, it is clear that the

Defendant was convicted pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-13-

102(a)(2). 

Defendant argues that the statute came into effect on November 1, 1996.

Public Act 1993, Chapter No. 306 amended the offense of aggravated assault to

include the commission of assault with a reckless intent, and this Act took effect on

May 12, 1993. As Defendant committed the offense on October 30, 1993, this issue

has no merit.
-7-

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

____________________________________

THOMAS T. W OODALL, Judge 

CONCUR:

___________________________________

JOHN H. PEAY, Judge

___________________________________

DAVID H. WELLES, Judge