1 NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 123,751

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

S TATE OF K ANSAS , Appellee ,

v.

B RYAN M ICHAEL K NAPP , Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Douglas District Court; S TACEY D ONOVAN , judge. Opinion filed September 16 , 2022. Affirmed.

Jacob Nowak , of Kansas Appellate Defender Office, for appellant.

Brian Deiter , assistant district attorney , Suzanne Valdez , district attorney , and Derek Schmidt , attorney general , for appellee.

B efore B RUNS , P.J., A TCHESON and I SHERWOOD , JJ.

P ER C URIAM : Defendant Bryan Michael Knapp appeals his conviction in a bench trial in Douglas County District Court for one count of aggravated battery of a law enforcement officer, a severity level 3 person felony violation of K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21

- 5413(d)(1)(A). For his sole issue on appeal, Knapp contends the State p resent ed
in sufficient evidence the officer sustained " great bodily harm ," an element of the crime. We conclude there was enough evidence

— the officer suffered a broken nose requiring surgery to correct su bstantial internal damage to his nasal passages

— to support the
conviction.2 In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we construe the evidence in a light most favorable to the party prevailing in the district court, here the State, and in support of the judgme nt of conviction. An appellate court will neither reweigh the evidence generally nor make credibility determinations specifically. State v. Jenkins , 308 Kan. 545, Syl. ¶ 1,
4 22 P.3d 72 (2018); State v. Butler , 307 Kan. 831, 844

- 45, 416 P.3d 116 (2018); Sta te v. Pham , 281 Kan. 1227, 1252, 136 P.3d 919 (2006). The issue for review is simply
whether a rational fact

- finder could have determined the defendant to be guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Butler , 307 Kan. at 844

- 45; State v. McBroom , 299 Kan. 731, 754, 325 P.3d 1174 (2014). The standard is the same whether the defendant has been convicted in a bench trial or a jury trial. See State v. Kendall , 300 Kan. 515, 523, 331 P.3d 763 (2014).

Here, the relevant evidence looked at that way is terse and straightfo rward. Knapp was being detained in the Douglas County Detention Center in November 2019 when he started flushing stuff down the toilet in his cell, causing a backup. He declined to cease and desist and apparently was being noncompliant in other ways

. L ieutenant Mark Mehrer, the shift supervisor and a commissioned law enforcement office r with the county sheriff's department , entered the cell. Knapp punche d Lt. Mehrer in the nose

— a single
blow that broke the officer's nose.

Lt. Mehrer testified the inju ry did not bleed much but his nose was visibly deformed by the blow. The physician Lt. Mehrer first saw diagnosed a broken nose and
recommended a consultation with an otolaryngologist . Lt. Mehrer followed up with a specialist, who recommended corrective su rgery because of significant damage to the
interior str ucture of the nose . According to the otolaryngologist , the damage could affect Lt. Mehrer's normal breathing over time if left uncorrected. Lt. Mehrer ha d the corrective

surgery in December 2019 and wa s off work for a week and ha d an additional recuperation period of several weeks with some restrictions on his activities.3 K

napp testifie d during the trial and offer ed a self

- defense theory built around Lt.
Mehrer "horseplaying" with him in an inappropriate and physically threatening way

. Lt.
Mehrer testified that nothing of the sort happened. In its bench ruling, the district court

s pecifically discredit ed K napp's testimony on self

- defense

. We do not delve into th at aspect of the case any deeper since self

- defense is not a point on appeal. At a later hearing, the district court ordered Knapp to serve a guidelines sentence of 71 months in prison followed by 36 months of postrelease supervision . Knapp has not challen ged the

sentence.

Turning to the point that is before us , t he Kansas appellate courts have never categorically defined " great bodily harm, " especially distinguished from " bodily harm, "
as a term used in more than 20 statutes in the criminal code , includi ng those covering
various forms of felony and misdemeanor battery. The crime of conviction requires that a defendant "knowingly caus[e] great bodily harm " to a law enforcement officer performing his or her official duties. K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21

- 5413(d)(1)(A). The
differentiation between great bodily harm and bodily harm is commonly treated as a question for the jury

— or , in this case , the district court sitting as the fact

- finder

—based
on the circumstances of the particular case

. State v. Simmo ns , 295 Kan. 171, 177 , 283
P.3d 212 (2012) ("We have repeatedly held that establishing the difference between harm and great bodily harm is a decision for the jury.") ; State v. Salem , No. 118,351, 2019 WL 2237382, at *11 (Kan. App. 2019) (unpublished opini on) (Kansas caselaw creates " a
vast gray area . . . that encompasses conduct a jury could find to be great bodily harm but which is not conclusively so.").

There are, as Knapp suggests, some outer bounds as to what may be considered great bodily harm. See State v. Kelly , 262 Kan. 755, Syl. ¶ 2, 942 P.2d 579 (1997) (great bodily harm must be distinguished from "slight . . . or moderate harm" and requires more than "mere bruises"). But the injury Knapp inflicted on Lt. Mehrer that caused an obvious disfigurement to the bony structure of the officer's nose, significantly damaged the4 interior nasal passages, and required corrective surgery with a measurable conval escence falls within the gray area of possible great bodily harm left for the fact

- finder to
determine. See State v. Cheek , No. 105,140, 2011 WL 4444489, at * 1, 3 (Kan. App. 2011) (unpublished opinion) (two punches to face knocking out victim's tooth suffi cient to support jury verdict based on great bodily harm); State v. Vessels , No. 96,421 , 2008 WL 1847374, at *4 (Kan. App. 2008) (unpublished opinion) (jury question whether defendant's conduct in twisting 65

- year
- old woman' s arm and breaking a forearm bone
caused great bodily harm); State v. Quinones , No. 93,848, 2006 WL 995374, at *1

- 2 (Ka n. App. 2006) (unpublished opinion) (jury question whether defendant inflicted great bodily harm when he punched and kicked his neighbor, breaking victim's nose and left cheek bone) ; State v. Whitehurst , No. 74,731, 1997 WL 35435546, at *7 ( Kan. App. 1997) (unpublished opinion) (broken nose with bruising and facial cut suffici ent to support great bodily harm for aggravated battery conviction) . Accordingly, sufficient evidence supports the district court's decision to convict Knapp of aggravated battery of a
law enforcement officer

.

Affirmed.