This opinion will be unpublished and 

may not be cited except as provided by 

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014). 

STATE OF MINNESOTA 

IN COURT OF APPEALS 

A15-1144 

State of Minnesota, 

Respondent, 

vs. 

Gregory Mark Bowles, 

Appellant 

Filed May 31, 2016 

Affirmed 

Worke, Judge 

Stearns County District Court 

File No. 73-CR-13-3289 

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Robert A. Plesha, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, 

Minnesota 

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Julie Loftus Nelson, Assistant 

Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota 

 Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Smith, 

Tracy, Judge. 

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N 

WORKE, Judge 

Appellant challenges his third-degree assault conviction, arguing that the evidence 

was insufficient to show that he inflicted substantial bodily harm. We affirm. 
2 

D E C I S I O N 

A jury found appellant Gregory Mark Bowles guilty of third- and fifth-degree 

assault and two counts of terroristic threats. Bowles challenges the sufficiency of the 

evidence to sustain his conviction of third-degree assault, arguing that the victim’s 

injuries do not constitute substantial bodily harm. 

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews “the record to 

determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the 

conviction,” is sufficient to allow the jury to reach the verdict that it did. State v. Webb, 

440 N.W.2d 426, 430 (Minn. 1989). This court will not disturb the verdict if the jury, 

“acting with due regard for the presumption of innocence and for the necessity of 

overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could reasonably conclude that [the 

appellant] was proven guilty of the offense charged.” Bernhardt v. State, 684 N.W.2d 

465, 476–77 (Minn. 2004) (quotation omitted). This court assumes that “the jury 

believed the state’s witnesses and disbelieved any evidence to the contrary.” State v. 

Moore, 438 N.W.2d 101, 108 (Minn. 1989). 

“Whoever assaults another and inflicts substantial bodily harm” is guilty of thirddegree assault. Minn. Stat. § 609.223, subd. 1 (2012). Substantial bodily harm is “bodily 

injury which involves a temporary but substantial disfigurement, or which causes a 

temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or 

organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7a 

(2012). 
3 

Here, when Bowles was a patient in a hospital, A.O., a behavioral-health case 

manager, was called to calm him down. A.O. calmed Bowles, but he had a second 

outburst. During the second outburst, Bowles struck A.O. so hard that she flew 

backwards and hit her head. At Bowles’s jury trial, A.O. testified that she suffered 

bruises and a concussion. 

Bowles claims that A.O.’s concussion does not amount to substantial bodily harm 

because she “never lost consciousness.” But while Bowles cites State v. Larkin, for the 

proposition that a temporary loss of consciousness amounts to substantial bodily harm, he 

cites no caselaw that states that a victim must lose consciousness in order to suffer 

substantial bodily harm. See 620 N.W.2d 335, 337 (Minn. App. 2001). 

Bowles also discounts A.O.’s testimony that she suffered a concussion, claiming 

that an MRI and a CT scan showed no injuries. But, for purposes of our review, we 

assume that the jury believed A.O.’s testimony. See Moore, 438 N.W.2d at 108. Further, 

other evidence corroborated A.O.’s statement that she suffered a concussion. 

A.O. testified that she had an MRI and her diagnosis was “closed head injury, 

which means injury to [her] brain.” Dr. John Mertz testified that he treated A.O. for a 

“fairly large hematoma [over] her occipital area,” meaning “blood in between the skin 

and the skull on the back of the head.” While a CT of A.O.’s head did not show any 

acute injuries, Dr. Mertz explained that a concussion may not be observable on a CT. Dr. 

Mertz defined a concussion as “a head injury that you don’t see any observable lesions on 

the CT from that injury, and so we think that the injuries are microscopic, that they’re not 

large enough to see but they definitely have their effects.” A.O. testified regarding the 
4 

“effects” of her concussion—a terrible headache and the inability to think, concentrate, or 

rest. 

Bowles further claims that A.O.’s injuries were “only temporary.” But under the 

statute, substantial bodily harm means “temporary but substantial disfigurement, or 

[injury] which causes a temporary but substantial loss or impairment of the function of 

any bodily member or organ.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7a (emphasis added). There is 

no requirement that the injury result in permanent impairment. See, e.g., State v. 

Carlson, 369 N.W.2d 326, 327–28 (Minn. App. 1985) (holding two black eyes, a bloody 

nose, bruises, and scratches constitute substantial bodily harm), review denied (Minn. 

July 26, 1985). 

A.O. suffered substantial bodily harm; her injury temporarily, but substantially, 

impaired the function of her brain. See State v. Ayala, No. A13-2322, 2014 WL 

7236931, at *3 (Minn. App. Dec. 22, 2014) (stating that substantial bodily harm 

established by evidence of head injury that caused bleeding, a laceration, and a 

hematoma, and that while concussions are difficult to diagnose “especially in the 

immediate aftermath of a head injury,” recurring headaches could be consistent with a 

mild concussion), review denied (Minn. Mar. 17, 2015); In re Welfare of W.O., No. A10-

1535, 2011 WL 1237558, at *2 (Minn. App. Apr. 5, 2011) (stating that head wounds 

carry the extra risk of concussion that are not always immediately apparent), review 

denied (Minn. June 14, 2011). 

Affirmed.