SECOND DI VI SI ON

M I LLER, P. J.

, RI C K M A N and REESE, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

http://w w w .ga a ppe a l s .us /r ule s

June 28, 2019



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A1 9 A0 01 6 . W E AVER v

. THE STATE.

M I LLE R , Pres i d i n g J u d g e.

Fo l l owi n g a ju ry t ri al

, T am ara Ni co le W eav er was co n vi ct ed of t wo co u n t s o f

s eco n d d eg ree cru el t y t o ch i l dren

, t h ree co u n t s o f ag g rav at ed as s au l t , t wo co u n t s o f

fi rs t d eg ree cru el t y t o ch i l d ren

, an d t h ree co u n ts o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery

. Th e t ri al co u rt

i m p o s ed a 6 0 -y ear p ri so n sen ten ce wi t h t h e fi rs t 3 0 y ears t o b e serv ed i n p ri s o n

. 1

W eav er ap p eal s fro m t h e d e n i a l o f h er m o t i o n fo r n ew t ri al

. On ap p eal

, W eav er

arg u es t h at (1 ) t h e ev i den ce w as i n s uffi ci en t t o s up p ort h er co nv i ct io n s fo r ag g rav at ed

b at t ery ; (2 ) t h e ci rcu m s t an t ial ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t ri al was i n s uffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt

al l of t h e ch arg ed cri m es ; (3 ) th e t ri al co u rt erred b y ch arg in g th e j u ry wi t h t he “ s h o rt

1 Th e t ri al co u rt m erg ed W eav er’ s s eco n d deg ree cru el t y t o c hildr e n c onvic tions

wi t h t h e fi rs t d eg ree cru el t y t o ch i l d r en co n v i ct i o n s

, an d m erg ed t h e ag g rav at ed

as s au l t co n v i ct i o n s wi t h t he ag g rav at ed b at t ery co n v i ct io n s

.v ers i on ” o f t h e p a t t e r n i n s t ru ct i o n s ; an d (4 ) h er t ri al co u n s el ren d ered i n effect i v e

as s i s tan ce. Fo r t h e reas o n s t h at fo ll o w, we affi rm

.

Vi ewed i n t h e l i g h t m o s t fav o rab l e to t h e v erd i ct s

, 2 th e reco rd s h o ws t h at

W eav er h ad t wo s o n s

, an i nfan t an d a s i x -y ear-o l d

. W eav er s tay ed h o m e wi t h t h e

b ab y fo r s ev eral week s aft er h e was bo rn an d n o t i ced t h at h e cri ed a l o t an d t hat i t was

n o t a “ n o rm al ” cry

. W eav er an d h er ch i l d ren m o v ed i n wi t h h er b o y fri en d wh en t h e

b ab y was l es s t h an t wo m o n th s o l d

. W hen W eav er ret u rn ed t o w o rk

, s h e as k ed h er

m o th er t o t ak e care o f t h e bab y

. W eav er’ s m o t h er n o t i ced t h at th e b ab y cri ed a l o t an d

t es t i fi ed t h at W eav er was hav i n g p ro b l em s wi t h t he b ab y ’ s d iet an d h i s cry i n g.

W eav er an d her b o y fri en d b ot h wo rk ed fro m 6 : 0 0 p

. m

. t o 4 : 3 0 a.m

., an d aft er s h e

ret u rn ed t o wo rk

, W eav er g o t v ery l i t t l e s leep b ecau s e s h e to o k care o f t h e b ab y wh en

h e cri ed s o t h at h er bo y fri en d co u l d s l eep

. W eav er’ s b o y fri en d o n l y k ep t th e b ab y o n

a few o ccas i o n s

. W eav er

, h e r b o y fri en d, an d h er m o t h er were t h e bab y ’ s o n l y

careg i v ers

.

W h en t h e b ab y was al m o s t t h ree m o n t h s o l d, th e cry i n g g o t wo rs e an d W eav er,

h er b o y fri en d

, an d h er m o m d eci d ed t o t ak e h i m t o Ch i l d ren ’ s Heal th care o f At l an t a

(Sco t t i s h Ri t e h os p i t al ). A ch i l d ab u s e p ed i at ri ci an o rd ered x -ray s o f t h e i n fan t an d

2 Ja cks o n v. Vi r

gi n i a , 4 4 3 U. S. 3 07 (9 9 SCt 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 LE2 d 5 6 0 ) (1 9 7 9 ).

2t h e x -ray s rev eal ed n um ero u s b o n e fract u res

, s om e n ew an d o t h ers o l der an d i n t h e

h eal i ng p r o c es s

. 3 Th e d o ct o r al s o o rd ered a CT s can

, fro m wh ich h e o b s erv ed

ad d it i o n al fract u res t o th e i n fan t ’ s b od y

. Th e do ct o r t es t i fi ed th at

, i n to t al

, th e i n fan t

h ad 1 6 b o n e fract u res t h ro u g h ou t h i s ri b s

, l eg s, an d p el v i s . Th e d oct o r t es t i fi ed t h at

s o m e t y p e o f t rau m a t o t h e bo d y wo u l d b e req u i red t o b reak t h e b o n es an d t h at

,

b ecau s e t h e fract u res were o f d i fferen t ag es

, th ere were at l eas t two d i fferen t

t rau m at i c ev en t s t h at cau s ed t h e i n fan t ’ s i n ju ri es

. Fo r t he ri b fract u res

, t he m o s t l i k el y

ex p lan at i o n w as a “ s qu eezi ng fo rce ab o u t t h e ch es t.” Th e d oct o r o pi n ed th at t h e l eg

fract u res were l i kel y cau s ed b y a y an k i n g

, jerk i n g o r fl ai l i n g m ot i o n

, wh i ch co u l d n ot

b e cau s ed b y t h e b ab y h i m s el f o r b y n orm al h an d l i n g o f t h e b ab y

. To cau s e t he p el v i c

fract u re, a d i rect trau m a t o t h e p el vi s wo u l d b e req u i red

, an d th e i n j u r y co u l d h av e

b een ca u s e d b y a pers o n p u n ch i n g or s to m p i n g th e b ab y o r by a h eav y fal l d i rect l y

o n t o t he p el v i s

. T es ts o n t h e i n fan t ru l ed o u t t h e p o s s ib i l i t y t h at g en et i c i s s u es

, s u ch

as bri t t le b o ne d i s eas e or o t h er m ed i cal d i s o rd ers

, co u l d h av e co n t ri b u t e d t o t h e

fract u res

. Th e do ct o r al s o t es ti fi ed t h at t h e b ab y ’ s i n ju ri es were n o t v i s i b le fro m t h e

3 T h e x -ray s were n o t en t ered i n t o ev i d e n c e a t t ri al

, b u t t h e d o ct o r u t i l i zed a

d i ag ram t o i l l u s t rat e t h e i n fan t’ s i n ju ri es t o t h e ju ry

.

3ex t eri o r o f t h e b o d y an d t h at th e t y

p es of fract u res s u ffered b y t h e i n fan t wo u l d n ot

t y p i cal l y l eav e an y

b ru i ses o r o t h er m ark s o n t he o u t s id e o f t h e b o d y

.

Th e d o ct o r s p o k e t o W eav er, wh o t o l d h i m t h at s h e h ad n o i d ea h o w t h i s h ad

h ap pen ed an d den i ed t h at an y o n e h ad cau s ed an y t rau m a t o h er so n

. W eav er’ s m o t h er

s ai d s h e wa s n o t aware of t h e b ab y ex p eri en ci n g an y fal l s o r b ei n g d ro p p ed o r

h an dl ed ro u g h l y

. W eav er’ s b o y fri en d t o l d t h e do ct o r t h at We a v er was n o t g et t i n g

m u ch s l eep an d t h at t h e b ab y ’ s cry i ng an d fu s si n es s w ere weari ng her do wn

, b u t h e

d i d n o t m en t i o n an y

t rau m a t o t h e b ab y

.

Th e d o c t o r co ncl u d ed t h at t h e in ju ri es were m o s t co n s i s t en t wi t h p h y s i cal

ab u se o n at l eas t t wo d i fferen t o ccas i o n s

. Th e do ct o r t es t i fi ed t h at i t w o u l d o n l y t ak e

a few s eco n d s t o in fl i ct t hes e t y p es o f i n ju ri es an d t h at t he n u m

b e r o n e t ri g g er fo r

ab u se i n i n fan t s fro m two t o t h ree m o n t h s o l d i s a cry i n g i n fan t

. Th e d o ct o r al s o

t es t i fi ed t h at i t wo u l d b e h i gh ly u n l i k el y th at a s ix -y ear-o l d wo u l d h av e th e ab i l i t y to

i n fl i ct t h es e t y

p es o f i n ju ri es

.

A det e c t i v e wi t h t h e Gri ffi n Po l i ce Dep art m en t recei v ed a cal l fro m t h e h o s p i t al

ab o ut t h e i n fan t ’ s m

u l t i p l e fract u res

. Th e d et ect i v e i n t erv i ewed W eav er, an d t h at

reco rd ed i n t e r v i e w was p lay ed fo r t h e ju ry

. In t h e i n t erv i ew, W eav er s ai d t h at s h e

co u ld no t i m ag i ne t h at an y o n e i n h er f a m i l y wo u l d h u rt h er s on

. T he det ect i v e al s o

4i n t erv i ewed W eav er’ s b o y fri en d

, wh o s ai d t h e b ab y cri ed a l o t an d th at W eav er “ d eal t

wi t h h im

. ” He h ad n o ex pl an at io n as t o w h at m ay hav e cau s ed th e b ab y ’ s i n ju ri es

. In

an i nt erv i ew, W eav er’ s ol der s o n d i d n o t d is cl o s e th at h e h ad b een ab u s ed o r t h at h e

h ad s een an y o n e ab u s e hi s y o un g er b ro t h er. T he d et ect i v e al s o i n t erv iewed W eav er’ s

m o th er. At t ri al

, t h e p art i es en t ered a s t i p u l at io n

, wh i ch w as read t o t he ju ry

, s t at i n g

t h at l aw en fo rcem en t h ad ru l ed o u t W eav er’ s m o t her as a s us p ect

. W eav er t es t i fi ed

at t ri al t h at s h e d i d no t sq u eeze o r s h ak e h er b ab y i n an y way an d h ad n o i d ea t h at h e

h ad fract u red b on es

. Sh e fu rt h er t es t i fi ed t h a t s h e d i d n o t t h in k t h at an y t h i n g h ad

h ap pen ed t o h i m

an d t h at t h e d o ct or m ay

h av e m ad e a m i s t ak e.

W eav er an d h er b o y fri en d were i n d ict ed o n two co u n t s of fi rs t d eg ree cru el t y

t o ch i l d ren

, t wo co u nt s o f s eco n d d eg r e e cru el t y t o ch il d ren

, t h ree co u n t s o f

ag g rav at ed b at t ery

, 4 an d th ree co unts of a g g rav at ed as s au l t. W eav er an d h er b o y fri en d

were t ri ed jo i n t ly

, an d t h e ju ry fo u nd W eav er g u i l t y on al l co u n ts an d h er b o y fri en d

n o t g u i lt y o n al l co u n t s

. Th e t ri al co u rt i m p o se d a 6 0

- year p ri s o n s en t en ce wi t h t h e

fi rs t 3 0 y ears t o be s erv ed i n p ri s o n

. W eav er fi led a m o t i on fo r n ew t ri al

, w h i ch was

d en ied b y t h e t ri al co u rt . Th i s ap p eal fo l l owed

.

4 In t h e in d i ct m en t

, th e St at e o n l y al l eg ed t h e s ev ere d i s fi g u rem en t p ro n g o f

OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4

.

51

. I n her fi rs t en um erat i o n o f erro r, W eav er arg u es t h at t h e ev i d en ce was

i n s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt h er co n vi ct i o n s fo r ag grav at ed b at t ery . Sp eci fi cal l y

, W eav er

arg u es t h at t h e St at e fai l ed t o p r o v e th at t he v i ct i m ’ s i n ju ri es co n s t i t u t ed “ s eri ou s

d i s fi g u rem en t ” u n d er OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4 b ecau s e t h ey were n ot “ v i s i b le.” W e di s ag ree.

In rev i ewi n g t h e s u f

f i ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce, we v i ew t h e ev i d en ce i n

t h e l i g h t m o s t fav orab l e t o s u p p o rt t h e ju ry ’ s v erd ict an d det erm in e i f a

ra t i o n al t ri er o f fact co ul d fi n d each es s en ti al el em en t o f t h e cri m es

ch arg ed b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u bt

. W e d o n o t wei g h t h e ev i d en ce o r

d et erm i ne wi tn es s cred i b i l i t y

. Co n fl ict s i n wi tn es s tes t im on y are m at t ers

o f cred i b il i t y fo r t h e j u r y t o res o l v e. An d as l o n g as t h ere i s s o m e

ev i d en ce, ev en t h ou g h co n t rad i ct ed

, t o s up p ort each fact n eces s ary fo r

t h e s t at e’ s cas e, t h e v erd i ct wi l l b e u p h el d.

(Ci t at i o n o m i t ted .) Cl emo n s v. St a t e

, 2 6 5 Ga. Ap p. 8 2 5, 8 2 5 -8 2 6 (1 ) (5 9 5 SE2 d 5 3 0 )

(2 0 0 4). A l so

, “ [b ] ecau s e t he ci rcu m s t an ces of each ag g rav at ed b at t ery v ary

, wh et h er

d i s fi g u rem en t i s s eri ou s i s b es t res o l v ed b y t h e fact fi n d er o n a cas e

- b y- c a s e b as i s

.

Co n s eq u en t l y

, wh at co n s t i t u t es s eri o u s d is fi g u rem en t i s al m os t al way s a qu es t i o n fo r

t h e ju ry .” W

i l l i a ms v. S t a te , 2 4 8 Ga. Ap p. 3 1 6 , 3 1 8 (1 ) (5 4 6 SE2 d 7 4 ) (2 0 0 1 ).

In al l i nt erp ret at i o n s o f st at u t es

, t h e co u rt s s h al l l o o k d i l i gen tl y fo r t he

i n t en t i o n o f t h e Gen eral As s em b l y

. I n s o d o i n g

, th e ord i n ary

s i gn i fi cat io n s h al l b e ap p l i ed t o al l wo rd s. W h ere t h e l an g uag e o f a

s t at u e i s p lai n an d su s cep t i b l e t o o n l y o n e n a t u r al an d reas o n ab l e

6co n s t ru ct io n

, co u rt s m u s t co n s t ru e t h e st at u t e acco rd i n g l y

. I n f act

, wh ere

t h e l an g u ag e o f a s t at ut e i s p l ai n an d u n am b i g u o u s

, ju d i ci al co ns t ru ct i o n

i s n o t o n l y

u nn eces s ary

b u t fo rb i d d en

.

(Ci t at i o n o m i t t ed

. ) Ja cks o n v. S t a t e

, 3 0 9 Ga. Ap p

. 2 4

, 26 (1 ) (a) (7 0 9 SE2 d 4 4 )

(2 0 1 1). A d d i t i o nal l y

, “ cri m i nal s t at u t es m us t be read a c c o r d i n g t o t h e nat u ral an d

o b v i o u s i m

p o rt o f t h ei r l an gu ag e, an d t h ei r o p erat i o n s h o u l d n o t b e l i m i t ed o r

ex t en d ed b y ap p l icat i o n o f s u b t l e an d fo rced i n t erp ret at io n s .” (Ci tat i o n an d

p u n ct u at i o n o m i t ted .) B r a d f o r d v. S t at e

, 2 8 7 Ga. Ap p

. 5 0

, 5 3 (1 ) (6 5 1 SE2 d 3 5 6 )

(2 0 0 7). W h en a term i s n o t d efi n ed b y s t at u t e, we l o o k t o t h e o rd i nary m ean i n g o f t h at

wo rd

, s o l o n g as i t i s n o t a wo rd o f art o r a wo rd co n n ect ed wi t h a p art i cu lar t rad e o r

s u b ject m at t er. See OCGA § 1 -3 -1 (b ) (2 01 2 ) (“ In al l i n t erp ret at i o n s o f s tat u t es

, t h e

o rd i n a r y s i g n i fi cat i o n s h al l b e ap p l i ed t o al l wo rd s

, ex cep t wo rd s of art o r wo rd s

co n nect ed wi t h a p art i cu l ar t rad e o r s ub ject m at t er . . . .”).

Th e s t at u te at i s s u e, OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4 (a), p ro v i des t h at

A p ers o n co m

m i t s t h e o ffen s e o f ag g rav at ed bat t ery wh en he o r s he

m al i ci o u s l y cau s es b o d i l y h arm t o an o th er b y dep ri v i n g hi m o r h er o f a

m em b er o f h is o r h er b o d y

, b y r e n d e r i n g a m em b er o f h i s o r h er b o d y

u s el es s

, o r b y s eri ou s ly di s fi g u ri n g h is o r h er b o d y o r a m em b er t h ereo f.

7Th e t erm “ s eri o u sl y d is fi g u ri n g ” i s n o t d efi n ed in t h e s t at ut e, t hu s we lo o k t o t h e

o rd i n ary m ean i ng o f t h e wo rd

. In an at t em p t t o d efi n e d i s fi g u rem en t t o s u p p o rt an

ag g rav at ed b at t ery co n vi ct i o n

, t h is Co u rt h as prev i o u s l y r e l i ed o n Bl ack ’ s Law

D i c t i o n ary 5 wh i ch d efi n es d i s fi g u rem en t as “ [a] n i m p ai rm en t o r i n

ju ry t o t h e

ap p earan ce o f a p ers o n o r t h i n g ,” an d al so d efi n es i m p ai rm en t as “ a co n di t i o n in

wh i ch a p art o f a p ers o n’ s m i nd o r b o dy i s d am ag ed or d o es n o t w o r k w e l l

. . . .”

Bl ack ’ s Law Di ct i o nary (1 0 t h ed

. 2 0 1 4 ) (em ph as i s s u p p l i ed ). W eb s t er’ s Di ct i o n ary

d efi n es “ ap p earan ce” as an “ o u t ward as p ect ” o r “ a s e n s e i m p res s i o n o r as p ect o f a

t h i n g . . . .” W eb s t er’ s Th ird New In t ern at i o n al Di ct i o n ary at 1 0 3 (1 9 8 1 ).

In l i g h t o f t h es e d efi ni t i o n s an d p u rs u an t t o OCGA § 16 -5 -2 4 (a), W eav er’ s

arg u m en t t h at t h e i n fan t ’ s i n ju ri es were n o t “ v i si b l e” i s u n av ai l in g

. “ Seri ou s

d i s fi g u rem en t ” m ay b e p ro v en wh ere s eri o u s d am ag e o r i nju ry o ccu rred to a p ers o n ’ s

b o d y o r a p art o f a p ers o n ’ s b o d y

, wh i ch affect ed t h e ap pearan ce o f th e b o dy o r b o dy

p art

. Al t h o u g h W eav er rel i es u p o n Br a y v. S t at e

, 3 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. 7 6 8 (7 6 8 SE2 d 2 8 5 )

(2 0 0 8), F ea g i n v. S t a t e

, 3 17 Ga. A p p

. 5 4 3 ( 7 3 1 SE2 d 7 78 ) (2 0 1 2), S i l ver s v. S t a t e

,

2 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 4 8 6 (5 3 8 SE2 d 1 3 5 ) (2 0 0 0 ), an d Po l l a r d v. St a t e

, 2 3 0 Ga. Ap p

. 1 5 9

(4 9 5 SE2 d 6 2 9) (1 9 9 8) i n s up p o rt o f h er arg u m en t

, n o n e o f t h es e d e c i s i o n s a id

5 See e.g

., W

i l l i a ms v. S t a t e

, 2 4 8 Ga. Ap p

. 3 1 6, 31 8 (1 ) (5 4 6 SE2 d 7 4 ) (2 0 0 1 ).

8W eav er’ s cl ai m

. T h es e d eci s i on s m e rel y refl ect t h e t y p es o f ev i d en ce th i s Co u rt

d eem ed s u ffi ci en t t o s u p p o rt ag g rav at ed b at tery co n v i ct i o ns i n th o s e cas es

. W eav er

h as n o t ci t ed an y cas e b y t h i s Co u rt o r o u r Su p rem e Co u rt t h at h el d t h at

, t o co n s t i t u t e

s eri ou s d i s fi g u rem en t

, t h e v ict i m ’ s i n j u ri es m u st b e act u al l y v i s i b le fro m t h e o u t s i d e

o f a p ers on ’ s b o d y

. N o r h as t h i s Co u rt p recl u d ed t h e h o l d i n g t h at s eri ou s i n t ern al

i n ju ri es

, wh i ch c a n b e v i s i b l e t h ro u g h s u ch m ean s as x -ray

, can n ot s u p p o rt a

co n vi ct i o n fo r ag g rav at ed b at t ery

. No t ab l y

, i n Byr d v. S t a t e

, 2 5 1 G a. Ap p

. 8 3

, 8 4 (1 )

(5 5 3 SE2 d 3 80 ) (2 0 0 1 ), t h i s Co u rt s t at ed t hat “ d am ag e t o i n tern al o rg an s o f t h e v i ct i m

. . . co u l d co n s t i t u t e s eri ou s d i s fi g u rem en t .” Id

. at 8 4 (1 ). Al t h ou g h W eav er

d i s t i n gu i sh es Byr d b y arg u i n g t h at t he v i ct i m in t h at cas e s u ffered so m e v i s i b l e

i n ju r i es

, Byr d ’ s reas o n i n g an d h o l d i n g were n o t p rem i s ed o n t h e o u t ward v i s i b i l i t y

o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s i n

ju ry

.

Th i s Co u rt al s o ad d res s e d t h e i s s u e o f i n t ern al i n j u ri es fo r p u rp os es o f an

ag g rav at ed b at t ery co n v i c t i o n i n A ll en v. S t a t e

, 24 7 Ga. Ap p

. 10 (5 4 3 SE2 d 4 5 )

(2 0 0 0)

. T he r e

, t

he de f e n da n t ’ s a ggr a va te d b at t ery b y s eri ou s d i s fi g urem en t co n v i ct i o n

was b as ed o n d am ag e to t h e v i ct i m ’ s l i ver an d sp l een

. Id

. at 1 6 (4 ) (b ). W e hel d t h at

t h e t ri al co u rt d i d no t err i n fai l i n g t o i n st ru ct th e ju ry on t h e les s er o ffen s e o f b at t ery

b ecau s e t h e d am ag e t o t h e v ict i m ’ s l i v er an d s p leen co n st i t u t ed s eri o u s d i s fi g u rem en t

9t o s u p p o rt t h e defen d an t’ s ag g rav a t e d b a t t ery co n v i ct i o n. Id

. Al t h o u gh t h e i s s u e in

Al l en was wh et h er t h e t ri al co u rt erred b y fai li n g t o ch arg e t h e ju ry on t h e l es s er

o ffen s e o f bat t ery

, t h e reas o n i n g o f Al l en ap p l i es eq u al l y h ere

— s eri o u s i n ju ri es an d

d o cu m en t ed m ed i c a l dam ag e t o i n t ern al o rg an s can be su ffi ci en t t o s h o w s eri ou s

d i s fi g u rem en t un d er O CGA § 16 -5 -2 4 (a). In fact

, as i t d i rect ly rel at es t o t h e i n ju ri es

s u ffered b y t h e i n fan t i n t h i s cas e, t h i s Co u rt has l o ng h el d t h at “ [w] het h er fract u red

b o n es co n s t i t u t e s eri o u s d i s fi g urem en t wi l l d ep en d o n t he s p eci fi c fact s o f t h e cas e.”

(Ci t at i o n o m i t ted .) Ha r r i s v. S t a t e

, 2 7 2 Ga. Ap p

. 3 6 6

, 3 6 9 (2 ) (6 1 2 SE2 d 5 57 ) (2 0 0 5 ).

Here, t h e St at e p res en t ed ev i d en ce fro m a c h ild a buse p ed i at ri ci an wh o t es t i fi ed

t h at

, u p o n rev i ewi n g t h e in fan t ’ s x -ray s an d CT scan s

, h e s aw 1 6 fract u res i n t h e

i n fan t ’ s ri b s

, l eg s

, an d p el v i s

. He t es ti fi ed t h at

, b as ed on t h e lev el of t rau m a t o t h e

i n fan t ’ s b o d y

, at l eas t t wo d i fferen t t rau m at i c ev en ts o ccu rred

. A s to t h e ri b fract u res

,

h e t es t i fi ed t h at th o s e fract u res were m o s t l i kel y cau s ed b y a “ s q u eezi ng fo rce ab o ut

t h e ch es t .” He al s o t es t i fi ed t h at t h e l eg fract u res were l i k el y cau s ed b y a y an k i n g,

jerk in g

, o r fl ai l i n g m o t i o n t h at t he i n fan t co ul d n o t h av e cau sed hi m s el f. Ad d it i o n al l y

,

t h ere was t es t i m o n y t h at

, t o cau s e t h e p el v i c fract u res

, d i rect t rau m a t o t h e p el v i s

wo u l d hav e h ad to occu r, su ch as p u n ch i n g o r s t o m p i n g t h e i n fan t o r b y a heav y fal l

d i rect l y o n t o th e i n fan t ’ s p el v i s. W h i l e t h e St at e di d n o t i n t ro d u ce t h e x -ray s o r o t h er

10p h o t o g rap h i c ev id en ce t o d em o n s t rat e h o w b ad l y t h e b o n es were d am ag ed

, t h e d o ct o r

t e s t i f i e d as t o wh at h e s aw, an d h e i n d icat ed o n a d iag ram as t o ho w an d w h ere t h e

b o n es w ere fract ured

. Ag ai n

, “ wh et h er d is fi g u rem en t i s s eri o us is b es t res o l v ed b y t h e

fact fi n d er o n a cas e-b y -cas e b as i s

. Co n s eq u en t l y

, wh at co n s t i t u t e s s eri ou s

d i s fi g u rem en t i s al m os t al way s a q u es t io n fo r t h e ju ry .” W i ll i ams

, s u p ra, 2 4 8 Ga. Ap p.

at 3 1 8 (1 ). T h u s

, we co n cl u d e t h at t h i s ev id en ce was s u ffi ci en t fo r a reas o n ab l e ju ry

t o fi n d th at t h ere was s eri o us “ i m p ai rm en t or i nju ry t o t h e ap p earan ce of” t h e i n fan t ’ s

b o n es

, wh i ch are “ m em b ers ” o f t h e i n fan t’ s b o d y

. See OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4 (a).

Th erefo re, t h e St at e m et i t s b u rd en o f es t ab li s hi n g s eri o u s di s fi g u rem en t t o s u p p o rt

W eav er’ s a ggr av at ed b at t ery co n v i ct i o n s

, an d W eav er’ s i n su ffi ci en cy o f t h e ev i d en ce

cl ai m fai l s

.

2

. W eav er co n t en d s t h at t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed at t r i a l t h a t s h e h arm ed h er

i n f a n t s o n w as wh o l l y ci rcu m st an ti al

, bas ed s o lel y o n h er cu s t o d y o f t h e ch i l d

, an d

t h at i t m erel y creat ed a s us p i ci o n t h at s h e co m m i t ted t h e ch arg ed cri m es

. Sh e p o i n t s

o u t t h at b o t h h er m o th er an d h er b o y fri en d b ab y s at o n o ccas i on . W e d i s ag ree.

“ To warran t a co nv i ct i on o n ci rcu m s t an ti al ev i d en ce, t h e p ro v ed fact s s h al l n ot

o n l y be co n s i st en t wi t h t h e hy p o t h es is o f gu i l t

, b u t s h al l ex cl u d e e v e r y o t h er

reas on ab l e h y

p o t h es i s s av e t h at o f t h e g ui l t o f t he accu s ed .” OCGA § 2 4 -1 4 -6

.

11No t ev ery h y p o t h es i s i s r e a s o n ab le, an d t h e ev i d en ce d o es n o t h av e t o

ex cl ud e ev ery co n cei v ab l e i n feren ce o r h y p o t h es i s ; i t n eed ru le o u t o n l y

t h o s e t h at are reas o n ab l e. Th e reas o n ab l en es s o f an al t ern at i v e

h yp o t h es i s rai s ed b y a d efen d an t i s a q u es t i o n p ri n ci p al l y fo r t h e ju r y,

an d wh en t h e j u ry i s a u t h o r i z ed t o fi n d t hat t h e ev i d en ce, t ho u g h

ci rcu m s t an ti al

, i s s u ffi ci en t t o ex cl ud e ev ery reas o n ab l e h y p o th es i s sav e

t h at o f t h e accu s ed ’ s gu i l t

, t h i s Co u rt wi l l n ot d i s t u rb th at fi n d i n g un l es s

i t is i n s u p p o rt ab l e as a m at t er o f l aw.

Deb el b ot v. S t a t e , 3 0 5 Ga. 5 3 4

, 5 3 8 (1 ) (8 26 SE2 d 1 29 ) (2 0 1 9 ); s ee al s o Th o mp so n

v

. S t a t e

, 3 4 9 Ga. A p p. 1

, 3 (1 ) (8 2 5 SE2 d 4 1 3 ) (2 0 1 9 ) (ju ry au t h o ri zed t o reject an

al t ern at i v e h y

p o t h es i s i t co ns i ders i m

p l au si bl e).

Th e ex p ert t es t i fi ed t h at t h e i nju ri es s u ffered b y W eav er’ s b ab y were cau s ed by

s o m e t y p e o f t rau m a t o t h e b od y an d t h at t h ey were m o st co ns i s t en t wi t h at l eas t t wo

d i fferen t i n s tan ces o f ch i ld p h y s i cal ab u s e. A t t ri al

, W eav er o ffered n o al t ern at i v e

h y p o t h es i s fo r t h e in

ju ri es

, i n s t ead s t at i n g t h at s h e had n o i d ea h o w h er bab y was

i n ju red

, o r, al t ern at i v el y

, t h at n o t h in g had h ap p en ed t o h im an d t hat t h e do ct o rs m ay

h av e m ad e a m i st ak e. Un d er t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

, “ t h e j u ry was free n o t o n l y t o reject

[W eav er] ’ s ex p l an at i o n s o f t h e ch i l d ’ s i n ju ri es as u nreas o n ab le, b u t t o fi n d t h at t h e

St a t e ’s c a s e

– i n cl u d i n g t es t i m o n y as t o th e ex ten t an d cau se o f t h e ch i l d ’ s i n ju ri es

an d as to [W eav er] ’ s acces s t o [h i m ]

– ex cl u d ed ev ery reas o n ab l e p o s si b i l i t y s av e

12[W eav er] ’ s g u i l t .” H u nn i cu t t v

. S t a t e

, 2 7 6 Ga. Ap p

. 5 4 7, 5 4 9 (1 ) (6 2 3 SE2 d 7 1 4 )

(2 0 0 5); s ee Th omp s o n v. S t a t e

, 2 6 2 Ga. Ap p

. 1 7

, 1 8 -1 9 (1 ) (5 8 5 SE2 d 12 5 ) (2 0 0 3 )

(ev i d en ce, al t ho u g h ci rcu m s tan t i al

, was s uffi ci en t t o su s t ai n t h e co n v i ct i o n s fo r

cru el t y t o ch i l d ren wh ere do ct o r t es t i fi ed t h at fract u res t o ch i l d ’ s arm s an d an k l e were

n o t acci den t al an d p aren t s co u ld n o t e x p l ai n h o w ch i l d recei v ed i nju ri es n o r n am e

an y o n e wh o m i g h t h av e cau s ed t h em ).

To t h e ex t en t t h at W eav er n o w o ffers t h e al tern at i v e h y p o t h es i s t h at h er m o t h er

co u ld h av e i n

ju red h er b ab y

, t h e j u ry w as en t i t l ed t o r eject t h at h y po t h es i s as

u n reas o nab l e becau s e t h e part i es en t ered a s t i p u l at i o n th at l aw en fo rcem en t h ad ru l ed

o u t W eav er’ s m o th er as a s u s p ect

, an d t h at s t ip u lat i o n was read to t h e ju ry

. An d t h e

ju ry s p eci fi cal ly co ns i dered wh et h er W eav er’ s b o y fri en d co u l d h av e i n ju red t h e b ab y

wh en i t ad d res s ed t h e ch arg es ag ai ns t h i m

, fi n di n g h i m n o t g u i l t y o n al l co u nt s

.

Wh e th er t he St at e’ s ev i d en ce ex cl u d ed ev ery reas on ab l e p o s s i b il i t y s av e t h at o f

W eav er’ s g u i l t was p art icu l a r l y a q u es t i o n fo r t h e ju ry

, an d w e can n o t s ay t h at t h e

ju ry ’ s verd i ct i s u n s up p o rt ab l e as a m at t er o f l aw. See Hu nn i cu t t

, 2 7 6 G a. Ap p

. at 5 4 9

(1 ); Th o mp s on , 2 6 2 Ga. Ap p. at 1 8-1 9 (1 ).

133

. W eav er co n ten d s t hat t h e t ri al co urt erred i n fai l i n g t o i n cl u d e th e l an g u ag e

o f OCGA § 2 4 -1 4-6 6 i n i ts ch arg e o n ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce. W e d i s ag ree.

W eav er fai led t o ob

ject t o t he t ri al co u rt ’ s ch arg e o n ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce,

wh i c h p r e cl u d es ap p el l at e rev i ew o f t hi s po rt i o n o f t h e ju ry ch arg e, “ u n l es s s u ch

p o rt i on of t h e j u ry ch arg e co n s t i t u t es p l a i n erro r wh i ch affect s s u b s t an t ial ri g h t s o f

t h e p art i es .” OCGA § 17 -8 -5 8 (b ). To es t ab l i s h p l ai n erro r,

[f] i rs t , t h ere m

us t b e an erro r o r d efect

– s o m e s ort o f d ev i at i o n fro m a

l eg al ru le

– t hat h as n o t b een i n t en t i o n a l l y r el i nq u is h ed o r ab an d o n ed

,

i .e., affi rm at i vel y w ai v ed

, b y th e ap p el l an t

. Seco n d, t h e l eg al erro r m u s t

b e cl ear o r o bv io u s

, rat h er t h an s u b ject t o reas o n ab l e d i sp u te. Th i rd

, th e

erro r m u s t hav e affect ed t h e ap p el l an t ’ s s u b s t an t i al ri g h t s

, wh i ch i n th e

o rd i nary cas e m ean s he m u s t d em o n s t rat e t h at i t affect ed t h e o ut co m e o f

t h e t ri al co u rt p ro ceed i ng s

. Fo u rt h an d fi n al ly

, i f t h e ab ov e t h ree p ro n g s

are s at i s fi ed

, t h e ap p el l at e co u rt has t h e d i s c r e ti on t o rem ed y th e

erro r— d i s cret io n wh i ch o u g h t t o b e ex erci s ed on l y i f t h e erro r s eri o us l y

affect s t h e fai rn es s, i n t eg ri t y or p u b li c rep u t at i o n o f ju d i ci al

p ro ceed i n g s

.

6 As p rev i o u s l y n ot ed

, OCGA § 2 4 -1 4 -6 p ro v i d es t h at “ [t ] o warran t a

co n vi ct i o n o n ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce, t h e p ro v ed fact s s h al l n ot o n l y b e co n s i s t en t

wi t h th e h y

po t h es i s o f g u i l t

, b u t s h al l ex cl ud e ev ery o t h er reas o nab le h y p ot h es i s s av e

t h at o f t he g ui lt o f t h e accu s ed .”

14(Ci t at i o n an d p u n ct uat i o n o m i t t ed ; em p h as i s i n o ri gi n al ) S t a t e v. Kel l y , 2 9 0 Ga. 2 9,

3 3 (2 ) (a) (7 1 8 SE2 d 2 3 2 ) (2 0 11 ).

Pret erm it t i n g w h e t h er t h e t ri al co u rt erred i n fai li n g t o g i ve a ch arg e o n

ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce t h at i n cl u d ed t h e l an g u ag e o f OCGA § 24 -1 4 -6

, W eav er h as

fai l ed t o s at i s fy t h e t hi rd p ro n g o f t h e pl ai n err o r t e s t

. “ In ev al u at in g cl ai m s o f

i n s t ru ct i o n al erro r, we ex am i ne t h e ju ry ch arg e as a wh ol e.” Ga d s o n v. S t at e

, 3 0 3 Ga.

8 7 1

, 87 5 (2 ) (8 1 5 SE2 d 8 2 8 ) (2 0 1 8 ). Vi ewed as a wh o l e, t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s ch arg e

s u ffi ci en t l y in fo rm ed t h e ju ry o f t h e St at e’ s b u rd en o f ex cl u di n g al l o t h er reas o n ab l e

h y p o t h es es ex cep t W eav er’ s g ui l t wi t h res pect t o t h e cri m es ch arg ed

. Th e co u rt g av e

i n s t ru ct i o n s o n t he St at e’ s b u rd en t o p ro v e W eav er’ s g u i l t b ey on d a reas o n ab l e d o u bt

an d t h e St at e’ s du t y t o p ro v e b ey o n d a reas o n ab l e d o u b t “ ev ery m at eri al al l eg at i o n

o f t h e in d i ct m en t an d ev ery es s en t i al el em en t of t h e cri m es ch arg ed .” Th e co u rt al s o

ad v is ed t h e ju ry t h at “ [f] act s an d ci rcu m s t an ces t h at m erel y p l ace u p o n [W eav er] a

g rav e s u s p i ci o n of t h e cri m e ch arg ed

, o r t h at m erel y rai s e a s p ecu l at io n o r co n ject u re

o f [W eav er’ s] g u i lt are n o t s uffi c i e n t t o au t h o ri ze a co n v i ct io n

. . . .” Th e co u rt

d i s cu s s ed t h e di fferen ce b et ween d i rect an d ci rcu m s tan t i al ev i d en ce, an d i n s t ru ct ed

t h e ju ry t h at i t “ wo u l d b e au t h o ri zed t o co n vi ct o nl y i f t h e ev i d en ce, wh et h er d i rect

o r ci rcu m s t an t i al o r b o t h, ex cl u d es al l rea s o n a b l e t h eo ri es o f in n ocen ce an d p ro v es

15t h e g u i l t o f t h e accu s ed b ey on d a reas o nab l e d o u b t

. ” Th e i n st ru ct io n s th e t ri al co u rt

g av e ad eq u at el y ad v i s ed t h e ju ry t h at i f it b el i ev ed th at th e ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce

s u p p ort ed an al t ern at i v e h y po t h es i s

, i t s ho u ld ret u rn a verd i ct of n o t g u il t y

, as i t d id

wi t h W eav er’ s b oy fri en d

. See Ga d s o n

, 30 3 Ga. at 87 5 (2 ). Un d er th e ci rcu m s t an ces

,

we can n o t s ay t h at i f th e t ri al co u rt h ad ad d ed a ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n wi t h t h e l an g u ag e o f

OCGA § 2 4 -1 4-6

, i t i s l i k el y t h at t h e ju ry wo u l d h av e ret u rn ed a d i fferen t v e r d i ct

.

W eav er h as t h erefo re fai l ed t o es t ab l i s h p l ai n erro r. See Id . at 8 7 6 (2 ).

4

. W eav er co n ten d s t h at h er t ri al co u n sel was in effect i v e fo r fai l i n g t o m o v e

fo r d i rect ed v erd i ct o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t t h e el em en t s o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery h ad n ot

b een p ro v en an d fai l i n g t o o b j ect t o t h e co u rt ’ s ju ry i n s t ru ct i o n o n ci rcu m s t an t i al

ev i d en ce. Th i s en u m erat i on o f erro r al s o fai l s

.

To p rev ai l o n a c l ai m

o f i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u ns el

, a d efen d an t

m u s t s h o w th at co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce was d efi ci en t an d t h at th e

d efi ci en t p erfo r m a n ce so p reju d i ced t h e d efen d an t t h at th ere i s a

reas o n ab l e l ik el i h o o d t h at , b u t fo r co u n s el ’ s erro rs

, t h e o u tco m e of t he

t ri al wo ul d h av e b e e n d i fferen t

. If an ap p el lan t fai l s t o m eet hi s o r h er

b u rd en o f p ro v i n g e i t h e r p ro ng o f t h e S t r i ckl a n d 7 t es t

, t h e rev i ewi n g

co u rt d o es n o t h av e to ex am i n e t h e o t h er p r o n g

. In rev i ewi n g t h e t ri al

7 S t r i ckl a n d v. W

a s h i n g t o n

, 4 6 6 U. S. 66 8 (1 0 4 SCt 2 05 2

, 8 0 L E 2 d 6 7 4 )

(1 9 8 4).

16co u rt ’ s deci s i o n

, we accep t t h e t ri al co urt ’ s fact u al fi n d in g s a n d

cred ib i l i t y d et erm i n at i o n s u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s

, b u t we

i n d ep en d en t l y ap p l y t h e l eg al p ri n ci p l es t o t h e fact s

. Fu rt h erm o re, t h ere

i s a st ro n g p res u m

p ti o n t h at t h e p erfo rm an ce o f co u ns el was w i t hi n th e

wi d e ran g e o f reas o n ab l e p ro fes si on al l awy eri ng , an d we can no t reach

a co n t rary co n cl u s io n u n l es s defen d an t s u cces s fu ll y reb u t s th e

p res um p t i o n b y cl ear an d co n v i n ci n g ev i d en ce. J u d i ci al s cru t in y o f

co u n s el ’ s p erfo rm an ce m u s t b e h i gh l y

d eferen t i al

.

(Ci t at i o n o m i t t e d .) B e a r d en v. S t a t e

, 3 1 6 Ga. Ap p

. 7 2 1

, 7 2 5 (3 ) (7 2 8 SE2 d 8 7 4 )

(2 0 1 2).

(a) W eav er co n t en d s t h at h er t ri al co u ns el was i n effect i v e fo r fai l i n g t o m o v e

fo r a d i r e c t ed v erd i ct o n t h e t h ree co u n t s of ag g rav at ed b at t ery b ecau s e th e St at e’ s

ev i d en ce was in su ffi ci en t t o s u pp o rt t h o s e ch arg es

. In l i g h t o f o u r h o l d in g i n Di v i s i o n

1

, ho wev er, W eav er can n o t s h o w t h at t ri al co u n s el was i n effect i ve fo r fai l i n g t o m o v e

fo r d i rect ed verd i ct o n t h e ag g rav at ed b at t e r y ch arg es

. See Ra n g e v. St a t e

, 2 8 9 Ga.

Ap p

. 7 2 7

, 7 3 1 (4 ) (6 5 8 SE2 d 2 4 5 ) (2 0 0 8 ) (h o ld i n g t h at b ecau se t h e s t an d ard fo r

d en ial o f a m o t i on fo r d irect ed v erd i ct i s t he s am e as t he s t an d ard fo r s u ffi ci en cy o f

t h e ev i d e n c e

, t h e d efen d an t co u l d n o t sh o w t h at tri al co u n s el was i n effect i v e fo r

fai l i n g t o m o v e fo r d i rect ed v erd i ct b ecau s e t he ev i den ce was su ffi ci en t t o s u s t ai n t h e

d efen d an t ’ s co n v i ct i on ).

17(b ) Nex t

, W eav er co n t en d s t h at h er t r i al co u n s el p erfo rm ed defi ci en tl y wh en

h e fai l ed t o o b

je c t t o t h e tri al co u rt ’ s ch arg e on di rect an d ci rcu m s t an t i al ev i d en ce

b ecau s e i t d i d n o t i ncl u d e t h e l an g u ag e o f OCGA § 2 4 -1 4 -6 . W e d i s ag ree.

“ W h en a d efen d an t rai s es an i n effect i v e as s i s t an ce o f co u n s el cl ai m b as ed o n

co u ns el ’ s fai l u re t o req u es t or o b ject t o cert ai n ju ry ch arg es

, t h e d efen d an t m us t s h o w

t h at th e ch arg es i n q u e s t i o n w ere erro neo u s an d th at

, i f p ro per ch arg es h ad b een

g i v en

, t h ere i s a reas on a b l e p r o b ab i l i t y t h at t h e res u l t o f t he t ri al wo u l d h av e b een

d i fferen t.” (Ci t at i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed .) W i lh i t e v. S t a t e

, 3 3 7 Ga. Ap p

. 3 2 4

, 3 2 5

(1 ) (7 87 SE2 d 2 93 ) (2 0 1 6 ). “ An d i f t h e d efen dan t fai l s t o m eet h [er] b u rd en o n o n e

p ro n g o f t h i s t wo -p ro n g t es t

, we n eed n ot rev i ew t h e o t h er p ro n g .” Id

. Pret erm i t t i n g

wh et h er t h e tri al co u rt ’ s ch arg e o n ci rcu m st an t i al ev i d en ce was erro n eo u s

, W eav er

can n ot es t ab l i s h t h e s eco n d p ro n g o f h er cl ai m o f i n effect i v e a s si s t an ce o f co u n s el

b ecau s e ev en i f th e t ri al co urt had in cl u d ed a j u ry i n s t ru ct i o n wi t h t h e l an g u ag e o f

OCGA § 2 4 -1 4 -6

, as d i s cu s s ed i n Di v i s i o n 3

, t h ere i s n o t a reas on ab l e p ro b ab i l i t y t h at

t h e res u l t o f t h e t ri al wo u l d h av e b e e n d i f f e ren t

. See Ga d

so n

, 3 0 3 Ga. at 8 7 6 (2 );

W i l h i t e

, 3 3 7 Ga. Ap p. at 3 2 6 -3 2 7 (1 ) (b ).

Acco rd i ng l y

, fo r th e reas o n s s t at ed ab o v e, we affi rm t he t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f

W eav er’ s m ot io n fo r n ew t ri al

.

18Ju d

g men t a f f i rmed

. Rees e, J., co ncu r

s

. Ri ckma n

, J., co n cu r

s i n Di vi s i o n s 2

, 3

a n d 4 (b ) a n d d i ss en t

s a s t o Di vi s i o n s 1 a n d

4 (a ).

* DI V I SI ONS 1 AND 4 (A) OF THI S OPI NI ON ARE PHYSI CAL PRECEDENT

ONLY. COURT OF APPEALS RULE 3 3 .2 (a ).”

19A1 9 A0 01 6 . W E AVER v

. THE STATE.

R I C K M A N , J u d g e, co n cu rri n g i n p art an d d is s en t i n g i n p art

.

I fu l l y co n cu r wi t h Di v i si o n s 2

, 3

, an d 4 (b ) of t he m ajo ri t y o p in io n

, ex cep t fo r

t h e l as t s en t en ce o f t h e o p i n i on

, an d res p ect fu l l y d i s s en t as t o Di v i s i o n s 1 an d 4 (a)

b ecau s e t h e St at e fai l ed t o carry i t s b u rd en o f p ro v i n g t h e “ seri o u s l y d i s f i g u ri n g ”

el em en t o f t he o ffen s e o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery as ch arg ed i n t h e i nd i ct m en t.

OCGA § 1 6 -5 -2 4 (a) s et s fo rt h t h ree m et ho d s o f co m m i t t i n g ag g rav at ed b at t ery

– b y “ m al i ci o u s l y cau s [i n g ] b o d i l y h arm t o an o t h er [ei th er] by d ep ri v i n g h i m o r h er

o f a m em b er of h i s o r h er bo d y

, b y ren d eri n g a m em b er o f h is o r h er bo d y us el es s

, o r

b y s eri o u s l y d is fi g u ri n g h i s o r h er b o d y o r a m em b er t h ereo f.” Th e St at e o p t ed toi n d i ct W ea v e r u n d er th e “ seri o u s l y d i s fi g u ri n g ” m et h o d, b u t fai l ed t o p ro v e t h at

el em en t o f t he cri m e. 1

Th e ag g rav at e d b a t t ery s t at u t e d o es n o t d efi n e “ s eri o u s di sfi g u rem en t ” an d

t h ere are no w el l -d efi ned g u i d el i n es fo r t h i s el em en t o f ag grav at ed bat t ery

. T o d efi n e

d i s fi g u rem en t

, we h av e p rev i o us l y lo o k ed t o Bl ack ’ s Law D ict i o n ary

. See W i l l i a ms

v. St a t e

, 2 4 8 G a. Ap p

. 3 1 6

, 3 1 8 (1 ) (5 4 6 SE2 d 7 4) (2 0 0 1 ) (“ Bl ack ’ s L aw Di ct i o n ary

d efi n es di s fi gu rem en t as t h at wh i ch i m p ai rs o r i n ju res t h e ap pearan ce o f a p ers o n ”);

s ee al s o Bl ack ’ s Law D i ct i o n ary (1 0 t h ed

. 2 0 1 4) (d i s f i g u r e m e n t d efi n ed as “ [a] n

i m p ai rm en t o r i n

ju ry t o t h e ap p earan ce o f a p ers o n o r t h in g ”). Th e t erm “ ap p earan ce,”

as rel ev an t h ere, i s d efi n ed as “ ex tern al s ho w” o r “ o ut ward as p ect .” See M erri am

W eb s t er’ s On l i n e Di ct i o n ary (J u n e 2 0 1 9).

A s n o t ed by t he m ajo ri t y

, “ wh et h er fract u red b o n es co n s t i t u te s eri ou s

d i s fi g u rem en t wi l l d ep en d o n t he s p eci fi c fact s o f t h e cas e.” Ha r r i s v. S t a t e

, 2 7 2 Ga.

Ap p

. 3 6 6, 3 6 9 (2 ) (6 1 2 SE2 d 5 57 ) (2 0 0 5 ). In pri o r cas es wh ere we h av e h el d t h at t h e

t ri er o f fact w as au t h ori zed t o co n cl u d e t h at fract u red b o n es co n s t i t u t ed s eri ou s

1 Cf. E a r wo o d v. S ta t e

, 3 2 6 Ga. Ap p

. 7 94

, 7 9 7 (1 ) (7 5 5 SE2 d 3 1 2 ) (2 0 1 4 )

(ev i d en ce o f fract u red arm s u ffi ci en t t o su p p o rt ju ry ’ s g u i l t y v erd i ct as t o ag g rav at ed

b at t ery ch arg e b as ed o n m a l i ci o u s l y cau s i n g b o d i ly h arm to an o t h er b y ren d eri n g a

m em b er o f h i s o r h er b o d y

u s el es s ).

2d i s fi g u rem en t

, at l eas t so m e ev id en ce was p res en t ed t hat t h e v ict i m ’ s ap p earan ce was

al t ered i n s o m e way

. See, e.g

., B r a y v. S t a te

, 3 3 0 Ga. Ap p. 7 6 8

, 7 7 2 (1 ) (a) (7 6 8 SE2 d

2 8 5 ) (2 01 5 ) (“ ev i d en ce th at t h e v i ct i m fract u red a b o n e, co m b i n ed wi t h p h o t o g rap h s

s h o wi n g b ru i s i n g o r o th e r v i s i bl e i n ju ri es i n t h e area of t h e fract u re, can co n s t i t u t e

s u ffi ci en t ev i d en c e o f s e ri o u s d i s fi g u rem en t”); Fea g i n v. S t a t e

, 3 17 Ga. Ap p

. 5 4 3,

5 4 5 (1 ) (7 3 1 SE2 d 7 7 8 ) (2 0 1 2) (ju ry au th o ri zed to fi n d s eri o us d i s fi g u rem en t wh ere

ev i d en ce i n cl u d ed p h o t o g rap h s d ep i ct i n g v ict i m ’ s s ev erel y s wo ll en an d b ru i s ed l eft

ey e, al o n g wi t h t es t i m o n y t h at v i ct i m ’ s ey e w as s wo l l en s h u t an d h er ey e s o ck et was

fract u red ); Y

ea r wo o d v. S t a t e

, 2 9 7 Ga. Ap p

. 6 3 3

, 6 3 5 (1 ) (6 7 8 SE2 d 1 1 4 ) (2 0 0 9 )

(ev i d en ce su ffi ci en t fo r ju ry t o fi n d s eri o u s d i s fi gu rem en t wh ere ev i d en ce was

p res en t ed o f nu m ero u s v i s i b l e i n ju ri es i n fl i ct ed u p o n t h e ch i l d

, i n cl u d i n g a b ru i se to

t h e ch i l d ’s h ead in t h e v ici n i t y o f t h e s k u l l fract u re rev eal ed b y t h e CT s can s );

Un d er wo o d v. S ta t e

, 2 8 3 Ga. A p p

. 63 8

, 6 4 1 (3 ) (6 4 2 SE2 d 32 4 ) (2 0 0 7 ), o v erru l ed o n

o t h er gro u n d s b y W

i l l i s v. St a t e

, 3 0 4 Ga. 6 8 6, 7 0 6 (1 1 ) (a) n .3 (8 2 0 SE2 d 6 4 0) (2 0 1 8 )

(ju ry co u l d reas o n ab l y fi n d t h at v i ct i m ’ s b r o k en no s e co n s ti t u t ed s eri ou s

d i s fi g u rem en t wh ere v i ct i m t es t i fi ed t h at h e was ab l e t o feel h i s n as al b o n es m o v i n g

aro u n d an d “ h i s n o se was al l l a i d o v er cl o s e t o h i s ri g h t ey e,” an d St at e i n t ro d u ced

i n t o ev i d en ce p ho t o g rap h s d ep i ct i n g i n ju ri es t o t h e v i ct i m ’ s n o s e an d s urg eo n ’ s

3t es t i m o ny t h at t h e pro ced u re u s ed t o rep ai r the n o s e i nv o lv ed re-b reak in g t he p at i en t ’ s

n o s e an d rep l aci ng i t i n i t s p ro p er po s i t i o n ); Ho p ki n s v. S t a t e

, 25 5 Ga. Ap p

. 2 0 2

, 2 0 4

(1 ) (5 6 4 SE2 d 8 0 5 ) (2 0 0 2 ) (v ict i m s h o wed ju ro rs her i n ju ri es as sh e t es t i fi ed t h at h er

arm was n o t o n l y b ro k en

, b u t al s o jerk ed o u t o f p l ace; b a s e d o n t h is t es t i m o n y an d

wh at t h ey s aw, j u ro rs co u l d h av e f o u n d t h at v ict i m ’ s arm was s eri o u s l y d i s fi g u red

b efo re i t was s et b ack i n p l ace); Ga n a s v. S t a t e , 2 45 Ga. Ap p . 6 4 5 , 6 4 6 (1 ) (a) (5 3 7

SE2 d 75 8 ) (2 0 0 0 ) (ju ry co u ld h av e fo u n d t em p o rary seri o us d i sfi g urem en t wh ere

wi t n e s s e s d e s c ri b ed t h e b ro k en fi n g er o n t h e d at e of th e b at t ery as i n an “ u n u s u al

p o s i t i on ,” as “ b en t b ack t o wh ere i t was b ro k en ,” an d as “ ju s t h an g in g t h ere”); S i l ver s

v. S t a t e

, 2 4 5 G a. Ap p

. 48 6

, 4 8 6 (1 ) (5 3 8 SE2 d 1 3 5 ) (2 0 0 0 ) (ev i d en ce was su ffi ci en t

t o s u pp o rt ag g rav at ed b at t ery co n v i ct i o n wh ere ev i d en ce sh o w ed t hat v i ct i m ’ s n as al

b o n e was s h at t ered

, res u lt i n g i n p erm an en t i nju ry t o v ict i m ’ s s i n u s e s ; an d St at e

i n t ro du ced p h o t o g rap h s o f t h e v i ct im ’ s b lack ey es

, bru i s ed face, an d s ev erel y s wo l l en

n o s e); Ch r i s t en s en v. S t at e

, 2 4 5 Ga. Ap p

. 16 5

, 1 6 7 -1 6 8 (3 ) (5 3 7 SE2 d 4 4 6 ) (2 0 0 0 )

(m o t i o n fo r d irect ed v erd i ct p ro p erl y d en i ed w h ere ev i d en ce s h o w ed t h at v i ct i m ’ s ey e

s o ck et was fract ured

, h e recei v ed m u l ti p l e s t i t ch es

, an d hi s ey e was s ev erel y

b l a c k en ed ); Po l l a r d v. St a t e

, 23 0 Ga. Ap p

. 1 5 9

, 1 6 0 (1 ) (4 9 5 SE2 d 6 2 9 ) (1 9 9 8 )

(rat i o n al t ri er o f fact co u l d h av e fo u n d b ro k en n o se co ns t i t u ted s eri o u s d i s fi g u rem en t

4wh ere ph o t o g rap h s o f t h e v i ct i m ’ s faci al i n ju ri es w ere in t ro d u ced i n ev i d en ce,

v i ct i m ’ s t re a t i n g p h y s i ci an d es cri b ed h er i n ju ri es as a n as al fract u re wi t h an

“ ex t rem el y d ev iat ed ” s ep t u m a n d t es t i fi ed v i ct i m h ad b ru i s i n g u nd er each o f h er

ey el i d s ); In In t er es t o

f H. S

. , 1 9 9 Ga. Ap p

. 4 8 1 (4 0 5 SE2 d 3 2 3 ) (1 9 9 1 ) (wh ere v i ct i m

s u ffered a b ro k en n o se an d a l acerat i o n t o t he s cal p req u i ri n g s ev e r a l s t i t ch es

,

ev i d en ce au t h o ri zed a fi n di ng t h at v i ct i m h ad i n cu rred at t h e v ery l eas t a t em

p o rary

s eri ou s d i s fi g u rem en t to h i s h ead ).

Th e m ajo ri ty ci tes t o n o cas es i n w h i ch we hav e h el d t h at t h e ex i s t en ce o f a

fract u re al o n e is s u ff

i c i e n t t o co n s t it u t e “ s eri o us di s fi g u rem en t ” an d d i sco u n t s t h e

rel ev an t ex i s t i n g au t h o ri ty

. In s t ead

, t h e m ajo ri t y rel i es heav i l y on Byr d v. S t a t e

, 2 5 1

Ga. A p p

. 8 3

, 8 4 (1 ) (5 5 3 SE2 d 3 8 0 ) (2 0 0 1 ), a cas e i n wh i ch t h i s co urt co n cl u d ed t h at

a ju ry co u l d fi nd seri o u s d i s fi g urem en t ev en t h o u g h t h e i nju ry was n o t i m m ed i at el y

v i s i b l e wh ere t h e ev i d en ce sh o wed t h at t h e v i ct i m ’ s h u s b an d b i t o ff a p ort i on o f h er

cl i t o ri s

, cau s i n g t h e v ict i m t o ex p eri en ce b l eed i n g

, s carri n g

, ab ras i on

, an d p ai n t o h er

g en it al area. Id

. B

yr d

, ho wev er, i s d i s t i n g u i sh ab l e b ecau s e t h e i n j u ri e s t h ere wo u ld

h av e b een v is i b l e u p o n ph y s i cal ex am in at i on an d h ere t h e o n ly ev i d en ce p res en t ed

t o s h o w s e r i o u s d i s fi g u rem en t was t es t i m o n y t h at t h e fract u res ex i s t ed ; t h e ex p ert

t es t i fi ed t h at n o i n

ju ri es were vi s i b l e up o n a ph y s i cal ex am in at i o n an d t hat t h es e t y p es

5o f fract u res wo u ld n o t t y p ical l y l eav e an y bru i s es o r ot h er m ark s o n t h e o u t s i d e o f t h e

b o d y

. A n d u n l i k e t h e o t h er cas es rel i ed u p o n b y th e m ajo ri t y

, t h i s cas e d o es n ot

i n v o l ve s ev ere i nju ri es t o i n t ern al org an s

. Th e i s s u e h ere is wh et h er m ed i cal

t es t i m o ny s t at i ng th at fract u res ex i s t ed

, wi t h o u t m o re, i s s u ffi ci en t to p ro v e “ s eri ou s

d i s fi g u rem en t ” u n d e r t h e ag g rav at ed b at t ery s t at u t e. Th e ex p ert d id n o t t es t i fy t h at

an y “ d i s fi g u rem en t ” res u l t ed fro m t h e fract u res an d n o o t h er ev i d en ce was i n t ro d u ced

d ep ict i n g t h e b ab y ’ s act u al i n ju ri es o r d em o n s t rat i n g an y al t erat i o n t o th e b ab y ’ s

ap p earan ce as a res u l t o f t h e i n ju ri es

. 2

Becau s e t h e St at e p res en t ed n o e v i d en ce fro m wh i ch t h e ju ry co ul d fi n d an y

i m p ai rm en t o r i n

ju ry t o t h e b ab y ’ s ap p earan ce, t he St at e h as fai l ed t o carry i t s b u rd en

o f p ro v i n g t h e “ seri o u sl y

d i s fi gu ri n g ” el em en t o f t h e o ffen s e o f ag g rav at ed b at t ery

.

Acco rd in g ly

, we s h o u ld rev ers e W eav er’ s co n v i ct i on s fo r ag g rav at ed b at t ery

. See

W i l l ia ms , 2 4 8 Ga. Ap p . at 3 1 9 (1 ).

2 Th e m ajo ri t y ’ s rep eat ed em p h as is o n t h e t y

p e o f fo rce u s ed t o c a u s e t h e

i n ju ri es i s n o t re l ev an t t o ou r d et erm in at io n o f wh et h er t h e res u l t i n g i n ju ri es

co n st i t u t ed “ s eri o us d i s fi g u rem en t .”

6