Opinion ID: 2343272
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Aggravated Assault While Armed

Text: Appellant also maintains that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of AAWA. He asserts, in particular, that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the nature of Mr. Tolbert's wounds constituted serious bodily injury as defined by statute and by this court. We reject this argument as well. D.C.Code § 22-404.01 (2001) provides: (a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault if: (1) By any means, that person knowingly or purposely causes serious bodily injury to another person; or (2) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, that person intentionally or knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious bodily injury to another person, and thereby causes serious bodily injury. Although serious bodily injury is not defined in this statute, which makes aggravated assault a crime, that term is defined in another statute dealing with sexual abuse. According to D.C.Code § 22-3001(7) (2001): [17] Serious bodily injury means bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty. This court in Nixon, supra, adopted that definition for the purpose of determining whether the government met its burden to prove `serious bodily injury' under the aggravated assault statute. Nixon, 730 A.2d at 150. In Nixon the evidence showed that the two victims of a shooting were able to run and thus were not unconscious and did not manifest immobilizing pain. Id. In addition, neither victim testified, and no medical evidence was introduced concerning the nature and extent of their injuries. Thus, even though the victims had been shot, we held that the government had failed to prove that either of them had suffered serious bodily injury. It is important to point out, however, that the Nixon court did not express any opinion as to the seriousness of the gunshot wounds suffered. Beaner, 845 A.2d at 538. It based its decision primarily on the fact that, because of the lack of evidence as to the victims' injuries, the jury was left to speculate about whether [they] were `serious bodily injuries' within the meaning of the aggravated assault statute. Id. That is not the situation presented here. In the present case, there was ample evidence that Mr. Tolbert suffered serious bodily injury as that term is used in the aggravated assault statute. Although Mr. Tolbert did not testify, Officer Battle, who attended to him at the scene, and Dr. Wang, who treated him at the hospital, both described the extent and seriousness of his injuries. Officer Battle testified that Mr. Tolbert appeared to be losing consciousness after being shot, and that he had to employ a special medical technique to keep Tolbert awake. He noted that Mr. Tolbert was unable to push down with his right foot. Tolbert was also moaning and confused, no doubt because he was in pain. In fact, Dr. Wang, the trauma surgeon at the hospital, testified that Mr. Tolbert was alert when he arrived at the hospital but was complaining of pain in his back (where he had been shot) and weakness in his lower right leg. Given these facts, we are satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to establish that Mr. Tolbert suffered serious bodily injury. He nearly lost consciousness, he indicated that he was in pain, and he suffered from an impairment of the function of his right leg. See Gathy v. United States, 754 A.2d 912, 914, 918 (D.C.2000) (court upheld finding of serious bodily injury when victim was slashed across the face with a broken beer bottle and was never unconscious, but was semi-unconscious, in total shock, and [not] totally coherent); cf. Anderson v. United States, 857 A.2d 451, 464 (D.C.2004) (victim did not describe pain as extreme, but a reasonable juror could infer from the nature of the injuries and the victim's reaction to them that the pain was extreme). [18] Moreover, Dr. Wang's testimony established that Mr. Tolbert's injuries were severe enough that they could have caused permanent damage or death, thus establishing a substantial risk of death under the statute. Tolbert suffered three gunshot wounds, one of which broke a vertebra and lodged inside his body, causing the loss of sensation in his lower right leg and ankle. The doctor testified that, as a result of that injury, Mr. Tolbert was at risk of paralysis if his spine started to swell in the area where the bullet had lodged. In addition, the bullet was only an inch from Tolbert's aorta, and any damage to the aorta could cause a major hemorrhage, which would require prolonged hospitalization and might even result in death. This medical evidence was sufficient to show that Mr. Tolbert's injuries were not only severe but life-threatening. See Chilcoat v. State, 155 Md.App. 394, 402, 843 A.2d 240, 245 (2004) (court upheld finding of serious bodily injury when victim's injuries could have resulted in blindness or paralysis, but did not; victim's successful recovery does not change the nature of the injury he suffered). As the government correctly points out, the fact that Mr. Tolbert was not in critical condition, was not paralyzed, and did not receive emergency surgery in no way mitigates the seriousness of his wounds. Officer Battle's prompt assistance at the scene of the shooting, coupled with the work of the paramedics in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, likely contributed to Mr. Tolbert's stability by the time he reached the hospital. This does not mean that his injuries were not severe; it merely shows that he had the good fortune to receive proper care. See Riddick, 806 A.2d at 641 (evidence was sufficient to show serious bodily injury when victim might have died as a result of her injuries if officers on the scene had not intervened to control the bleeding); Zeledon v. United States, 770 A.2d 972, 974 (D.C.2001) (evidence was sufficient to show serious bodily injury when medical testimony established that victim's injuries, if left untreated, could have resulted in death). We therefore conclude that the evidence was sufficient to prove serious bodily injury and, accordingly, to sustain appellant's conviction of aggravated assault while armed.