Court Opinion

ID: 9363945
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-17 22:03:13.687196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:34.975132
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                     No. 21-1675
                               Filed January 11, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

TRYMAINE DURYELLE BOSTIC,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Henry W. Latham

Judge.

         Trymaine Bostic appeals the trial court’s denial of his motions to continue

and for mistrial and also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his

convictions for child endangerment causing bodily injury and child endangerment.

AFFIRMED.

         Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

         Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

         Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.
                                           2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

       Trymaine Bostic appeals the trial court’s denial of his motions to continue

and for mistrial and also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his

convictions for child endangerment causing bodily injury and child endangerment.

In voluntarily absenting himself after the first day of trial, Bostic cannot complain

the court violated his constitutional right to be present when it denied the motions

to continue and for mistrial. There is substantial evidence to support each of the

convictions, and accordingly, we affirm.

I. Background Facts

       On July 7, 2015, Trymaine had an altercation with his wife, Jodi,1 when

Trymaine came to Jodi’s parents’ home and tried to take his two children—A.B,

two years old, and T.B., one year old—with him. He was charged in count 1 with

burglary in the first degree; in count 2, child endangerment causing bodily injury to

T.B. as a habitual offender; in count 3, child endangerment causing bodily injury to

A.B. as a habitual offender; in count 4, domestic-abuse assault causing bodily

injury to Jodi; and count 5, assault causing bodily injury to Jodi’s sister, Jami.

       The jury trial began on September 19, 2016. Trymaine was present and

represented by counsel.

       Jodi testified she and Trymaine were married and had a home in Fulton,

Illinois, which they shared with their two children, A.B. and T.B., and Trymaine’s

older child, K., age seven. Trymaine had not worked for “a few years,” and Jodi

paid the family bills, including the rent on their home in Fulton, Illinois. Jodi’s

1 Many of the people involved share a surname and, for ease of reference, we will
refer to them all by their first names.
                                           3

parents, Angela and Scott, lived about ten miles away in Camanche, Iowa, south

of Clinton. Jodi had been working in North Dakota for several months, traveling

back and forth between North Dakota and Fulton. Before July 5, Jodi informed

Trymaine she would not be sending as much money because she was trying to

get a home ready in North Dakota for herself and the children and she could not

afford to support both homes.2

          On Sunday, July 5, 2015, Trymaine called Jodi in North Dakota and was

“furious” she was not going to send more money. Trymaine told Jodi the water

had been shut off at the house in Fulton, the electric bill was in arrears, and the

power was going to be shut off. Trymaine told her that if she did not send more

money, he was going to take the children to Texas the following Sunday and she

wouldn’t see them again. Jodi told Trymaine she would arrive in Illinois by train on

July 8.

          Jodi called the Fulton police to ask if Trymaine could take the children to

Texas without her authorization. She was told that in the absence of a custodial

order, either parent had that authority. Jodi “panicked.” She flew from North

Dakota to the Clinton area on July 6. Jodi and Angela drove to the Fulton police

department to inform them Jodi was picking up her children.               An officer

accompanied her to the Fulton house where the children were with a childcare

provider since Trymaine had found employment and was working the third shift.

2Jodi said she and Trymaine “as a couple were not working” but she had informed
him she would help him find work in North Dakota and wanted the children to
continue to have a relationship with their father.
                                         4

The officer talked with the provider, and Jodi packed some clothes and took the

three children back to Iowa.

       When Trymaine learned Jodi had picked up the children and left, he went

to the Camanche police and was escorted to Angela and Scott’s home to retrieve

K. Jodi, Angela, and the children were not there, but Scott was; he called Jodi and

told her the police were looking for her. Jodi met an officer at a truck stop, and K.

was returned to Trymaine. Jodi and the other two children arrived at Jodi’s parents’

home at around 3:00 a.m.

       At about 11:30 a.m. on July 7, Angela testified she was leaving her driveway

and saw Trymaine in the passenger seat of a vehicle coming toward the home.

Angela recognized the vehicle as belonging to Trymaine’s aunt. Angela called

Scott and then tried to call Jodi, Jami, and her son, Kylr, who were also at the

house. She then called 911, turned around, and went back home. By the time

Angela got back to the house, her daughters and grandchildren were all crying.

Trymaine and the vehicle were gone.

       Jodi testified she was bathing A.B. and T.B. when Trymaine arrived. Kylr

told her Trymaine was at the door of the home. Jami told Jodi to shut and lock the

bathroom door. Jodi did so. The children were still in the bathtub. Jodi heard

scuffling in the hallway outside the bathroom, and then Trymaine “barged through

the bathroom door.” Jodi yelled at Trymaine, asking him “what the hell” he was

doing. Jodi was facing Trymaine, with the children behind her in the tub. Trymaine

shoved Jodi and she fell and landed in the bathtub on top of two-year-old A.B.

Trymaine reached around Jodi and pulled one-year-old T.B. out of the tub by the
                                         5

arm. Jodi stated Trymaine “yanked [T.B.] hard” and she heard a “pop” and thought

it came from T.B.

        Trymaine was holding T.B. close to his chest. Jodi got up and tried to get

T.B. back from Trymaine. Jodi had one arm “intertwined” with Trymaine and they

were pushing and shoving; Jodi was concerned Trymaine might drop the wet T.B.

onto the tile floor. Jodi was able to wrest T.B. away from Trymaine. She put T.B.

on the floor in the hallway outside the bathroom and “threw herself on top of [the

child].” Trymaine tried to get to T.B.—in the process he kicked Jodi in the side and

in the face. Jodi was able to get up with T.B., run behind Jami in the hallway, and

get T.B. to a bedroom where she hid T.B. on the floor between the bed and the

wall.

        When Jodi came back out of the bedroom, Trymaine and Jami were gone.

Jodi looked into the bathroom and did not see A.B. anywhere. Jodi could hear

Jami yelling but did not know where she was. Jodi ran out the front door and saw

Trymaine’s aunt’s vehicle parked across the street with Trymaine’s brother, Tevin,

in the driver’s seat. As Jodi started to run towards the vehicle, she saw Trymaine

run around from the side of the house holding wet, naked, and crying A.B. Jami

was chasing Trymaine.

        Jodi ran to the driver’s door of the vehicle. She was able to open the door—

despite Tevin trying to hold it shut—reach over Tevin, and pull the keys out of the

ignition. She and Tevin then struggled for possession of the keys.

        Trymaine threw A.B. into the rear passenger seat; A.B. was crying and

screaming. Jami caught up and was struggling with Trymaine on the passenger

side of the vehicle; Jodi and Tevin were wrestling over the keys on the driver’s
                                          6

side. Kylr came out of the house, reached into the vehicle, and got A.B. out. Jodi

told him to run. As soon as Jodi saw that Kylr and A.B. were in the house, Jodi let

go of the keys and backed away from Tevin. Jami and Trymaine also separated,

and Jodi walked over towards Jami. Trymaine walked to the back of the vehicle

and said, “This ain’t over bitch.” He and Tevin then drove away.

         Jodi went back into the house. The children were “worked up, crying,

hysterical.” The women wrapped the children in towels, and Jodi attempted to

calm them and herself. Jodi observed that both children had marks on them. The

police arrived and took photographs of T.B.’s injuries.

         Court was adjourned for the day after Jodi’s testimony. The court advised

the jury and the parties that trial would reconvene the following morning “and

hopefully we will be able to begin the trial sharply at 9:00.” The court again

instructed the attorneys and Trymaine to arrive at 8:45 a.m. so they could start

“promptly” at 9:00.

         Trymaine did not appear the second day of trial. At 10:10 a.m., outside the

presence of the jury, Trymaine’s attorney stated his office had attempted to call

Trymaine on his cell phone but the calls had gone to voicemail. Counsel also

advised he or someone from his office had contacted the hospital and learned

Trymaine had not been admitted.         They tried the emergency room to see if

Trymaine was a patient.3 Emergency room staff would not say whether Trymaine

was there, so they left a message that if he was there, he was to call his attorney’s

office right away—Trymaine did not call his attorney. Defense counsel also stated

3   Defense counsel stated Trymaine had a collapsed lung the week before trial.
                                           7

he advised Trymaine the day before that Tevin was going to be a witness and

asked if a subpoena was needed. Trymaine told his attorney it was not needed;

Tevin would be at court at noon.

       The prosecution resisted a continuance, noting Trymaine knew he was to

be present and had a working cell phone the day before.

       The court noted it had “advise[d] both counsel of Rule of Criminal Procedure

2.27(2) as to potentially proceeding in the absence of the defendant in this case.”

The court stated “at this point I could make a finding that it is voluntary” but in light

of a possible health concern, they would tell the jury to return at 1:30 p.m. and

defense counsel was to try to locate Trymaine and ascertain his availability for trial.

Defense counsel’s motion to continue was denied.

       At 1:30 p.m., again outside the jury’s presence, defense counsel stated:

               Here’s the situation, Your Honor. When I got back, I called
       his cell phone number and I left a message. I also sent a text. The
       message and text were essentially the same, You need to be here
       by 1:15. If you are not, the court is going to—well, I said that you
       were going to proceed without him. I guess I made that conclusion
       on my own. I told him that he would lose his right to challenge the
       State’s evidence and that he needed to call me immediately. I left
       my phone number both in the message and in the text.
               And then I went through my records. The only addresses I
       have for Trymaine were the address in Fulton and then one in
       Garland, Texas, which obviously I didn’t have time to check that. His
       brother was arrested at the same time he was and the address his
       brother gave at the time was [XXX]. I went down there, knocked on
       the door, no answer. I don’t know if he still lives there. That was
       [fifteen] months ago. That was the only other lead I had.

Defense counsel stated he had not been contacted by any of Trymaine’s family

members. He asked for a mistrial.

       The court stated it had reviewed the rules of criminal procedure and case

law and denied the motion for mistrial. The court noted there had been no medical
                                           8

reports of a collapsed lung presented and Trymaine appeared healthy the day

before. The court found Trymaine’s absence was voluntary, he knew he was to

be present by 8:45 a.m., and defense counsel had made diligent efforts to locate

Trymaine. The court further found:

         [Trymaine] has deliberately absented himself without any good
         cause that I can tell from this trial and there is good reason for this
         trial to continue based on the comments made by [the prosecutor].
         Primarily that this case has been on file for well over a year, there
         have been witnesses that have traveled many miles to be here to
         testify. And for those reasons the trial will proceed in his absence.

The court issued a warrant for Trymaine’s arrest.4

         Trial resumed without Trymaine. The court instructed the jury:

         [T]he defendant in this case has chosen to waive his constitutional
         right to be present for the duration of this trial. Under the law, this
         trial is allowed to proceed without his presence. No inference should
         be made pertaining to his guilt or innocence due to his lack of
         presence at this trial, nor should you speculate or infer any opinions
         the court may have on the defendant’s guilt or innocence based on
         the court’s decision to proceed without the defendant’s physical
         presence. Your duty remains the same, to be the judges of the facts
         in this case based on the evidence presented in this courtroom.

         Jami testified she and her young children were visiting Jodi at their parents’

home on July 7 when she heard a knock on the door. Kylr stated it was Trymaine.

Jami, holding her month-old infant, looked out and saw an “angry” looking

Trymaine. She went to the bathroom and told Jodi to shut and lock the door.

Trymaine came through the front door and down the hallway and asked Jami

“where the fuck are my kids.” Before she answered, Trymaine “threw [her] to the

side.” She hit a door jamb with her arm while trying to protect her infant. Jami

described how Trymaine “shoved himself through” the bathroom door, threw Jodi

4   The warrant was not served until August 2021.
                                          9

into the tub, and yanked T.B. by the arm out of the tub. T.B. was “crying and

screaming” and so was A.B.

       Jami put her child down and went back to try to help Jodi. She saw Jodi on

the ground huddled over T.B. Trymaine was kicking Jodi so Jami jumped on him.

Trymaine threw her off his back and he got A.B. out of the tub. Jami was unable

to stop Trymaine, and she then heard Scott ask Trymaine what he was doing.

Trymaine left the house out of the back sliding doors with A.B., and Jami chased

after him. She described the ensuing scuffling on the street and Kylr retrieving the

child from the car. Jami testified T.B. had marks on her back and on her face and

A.B. had marks on her back. A picture of T.B.’s back was admitted into evidence.

       Scott testified Jodi, Trymaine, and the children had lived with him and

Amanda in 2012 but Trymaine did not come and go as he pleased after moving

out. Kylr testified that when he saw Trymaine at the front door, he went to tell

Scott, who was in the shower. When Kylr went back out to the hallway, he saw

Trymaine “walk into the bathroom, reach into the bathtub, grab [A.B.] . . . out of the

bath, run through my living room[,] and out the sliding glass door.” He heard Scott

tell Trymaine to stop; Trymaine stopped briefly at the back door but left. Kylr

testified he “[p]anicked for a minute,” and then he made his way out the front door

and saw A.B. in the passenger seat of the vehicle across the street. Kylr grabbed

the child and ran to the house, and he and Scott locked the front door after they

got inside. A neighbor also testified about her observations that day. The jury was

released for the day.

       Trymaine again did not appear at trial the next day and had not contacted

defense counsel. The prosecution rested.
                                         10

       The defense called Tevin as a witness. Tevin testified Trymaine asked him

for a ride on the morning of July 7, saying he needed to talk to the children’s

grandfather.   Tevin did not believe Trymaine was agitated.          They drove to

Camanche, and Tevin parked across the street from Scott and Angela’s house.

Tevin testified he and Trymaine saw Angela leaving, but Trymaine noted Scott’s

truck was there. Tevin waited in the car while Trymaine went inside the house.

After a few minutes Tevin saw Jodi running out of the house. He stated, “She

came directly over to the car across the street and opened my door. And the keys

were still in the ignition, and she grabbed the keys out of the ignition and tried to

pull them out of the car.” They tussled over the keys, and then “everybody was

outside,” “her sister, her brother, and [Trymaine] had the baby in his arms.” Tevin

testified Jodi’s brother reached through the driver’s side rear door, reached across

the seats, and pulled the baby out through the window by the child’s arm. Then

Jodi released the keys, and he and Trymaine left. The defense then rested. The

defense’s motions for judgment of acquittal were denied.

       On count 1, the jury found Trymaine not guilty of burglary but guilty of the

lesser-included offense of assault. The jury also found Trymaine guilty of child

endangerment causing bodily injury to T.B. on count 2 and, on count 3, guilty of

the lesser-included offense of child endangerment concerning A.B. Trymaine was

found not guilty on counts 4 and 5. Trymaine was located in 2021, and the court

imposed sentence with him present. He now appeals.
                                           11

         Trymaine contends the court violated his right to be present when it denied

the motions to continue and for mistrial. He also asserts there is insufficient

evidence to support either of the child-endangerment charges.5

II. Standards of Review

         “We generally review a district court’s denial of a motion for continuance for

an abuse of discretion.” State v. Clark, 814 N.W.2d 551, 560 (Iowa 2012). We

reverse only if the denial was based “on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable

or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” See State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199, 203

(Iowa 2003). Because the decision “lies within the broad discretion of the trial

court,” we do not disturb the court’s ruling “unless an injustice has resulted.” State

v. Leutfaimany, 585 N.W.2d 200, 209 (Iowa 1998). On appeal, Trymaine asserts

proceeding in his absence violated his right to be present. We review constitutional

claims de novo. State v. Hurlbut, 970 N.W.2d 259, 264 (Iowa 2022).

         We review sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims for correction of errors of law.

State v. Henderson, 696 N.W.2d 5, 7 (Iowa 2005). “If the verdict is supported by

substantial evidence we will uphold a finding of guilt.”        Id. (citation omitted).

“Substantial evidence” is evidence that would convince a rational trier of fact the

defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

III. Discussion

         Right to be present. The defendant’s right to be present is implemented in

Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.27. See State v. Hendren, 311 N.W.2d 61, 62

(Iowa 1981); accord Hurlbut, 970 N.W.2d at 264 (“Every criminal defendant

5   The conviction for assault is not challenged.
                                         12

possesses the right to due process through presence at his trial and the right to

confront the State’s witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI, XIV; Iowa

Const. art. I, §§ 9, 10. Rule 2.27 implements the constitutional presence right.”).

“Like any personal constitutional guarantee, a defendant’s right to be present at

trial can be waived.” Hedren, 311 N.W.2d at 62; Hurlbut, 970 N.W.2d at 266 (“Due

process and confrontation are, without question, fundamental rights. But these

rights may be lost through a defendant’s voluntary conduct.” (internal citations

omitted)).

       Rule 2.27 provides:

              (1) In felony cases the defendant shall be present personally
       or by interactive audiovisual closed circuit system at the initial
       appearance, arraignment and plea, unless a written arraignment
       form as provided in rule 2.8(1) is filed, and pretrial proceedings, and
       shall be personally present at every stage of the trial including the
       impaneling of the jury and the return of the verdict, and at the
       imposition of sentence, except as otherwise provided by this rule.
       ....
              (2) In all cases, the progress of the trial or any other
       proceeding shall not be prevented whenever a defendant, initially
       present:
              (a) Is voluntarily absent after the trial or other proceeding has
       commenced.

       Whether we view the issue as one of waiver or of forfeiture, 6 we review the

facts on which the trial court’s finding of voluntariness was made de novo.

6 The Hurlbut court adopted the forfeiture approach. 970 N.W.2d at 266 (“We
believe that forfeiture provides the appropriate analytical framework under the
circumstances of this case.” (citing 6 Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Procedure
§ 24.2(d) (4th ed. 2015)).
       The cited section of LaFave states:
                In Taylor v. United States, the Court held that the defendant
       can also lose his right to be present by absenting himself during the
       trial. In rejecting the defendant’s contention that “his mere voluntary
       absence from his trial cannot be construed as an effective waiver . . .
       unless it is demonstrated that he knew or had been expressly warned
                                         13

Hendren, 311 N.W.2d at 62. “[F]or the absence to be deemed voluntary the

defendant ‘must be aware of the processes taking place, of his right and of his

obligation to be present, and he must have no sound reason for remaining away.’”

Id. (citation omitted); Taylor v. United States, 414 U.S. 17, 19 n.3 (1973) (stating

that for the absence to be deemed voluntary, the defendant “must be aware of the

processes taking place, of his right and of his obligation to be present, and he must

have no sound reason for remaining away” (citation omitted)).

       Trymaine was present for the first day of trial and the testimony of Angela

and Jodi—he clearly was aware the trial was taking place. He knew he was to be

present the second day of trial, having been informed to be at court by 8:45 a.m.

by the court and his attorney. The court provided defense counsel time and

opportunity to determine whether Trymaine’s nonattendance was because of

hospitalization or another emergency. See Hurlbut, 970 N.W.2d at 267 (noting

     by the trial court not only that he had a right to be present but also
     that the trial would continue in his absence and thereby effectively
     foreclose his right to testify and to confront personally the witnesses
     against him,” the Court noted:
            It is wholly incredible to suggest that petitioner, who
            was at liberty on bail, had attended the opening
            session of his trial, and had a duty to be present at the
            trial, . . . entertained any doubts about his right to be
            present at every stage of his trial. It seems equally
            incredible to us . . . “that a defendant who flees from a
            courtroom in the midst of a trial—where judge, jury,
            witnesses and lawyers are present and ready to
            continue—would not know that as a consequence the
            trial could continue in his absence.”
     Because this analysis is also difficult to square with traditional
     waiver-of-rights theory, here again it would seem preferable to view
     the matter in terms of forfeiture of a right by misconduct.
LaFave, Criminal Procedure § 24.2(d) (alterations in original) (footnotes omitted).
                                           14

those absences would be considered involuntary).            There was no indication

Trymaine’s absence was involuntary. On our review, because Trymaine was

voluntarily absent after the trial commenced, his right to be present was not

violated when trial continued in his absence.

       Sufficiency of the evidence. The jury instructions related to counts 2 and 3

were the same, with the exception of the child in question; count 3 substituted A.B.

in each place T.B. was listed:

               Under Count 2 the State must prove all of the following
       elements of child endangerment resulting in bodily injury:
               1. On or about July 7, 2015, the defendant was the parent or
       person having custody or control of T.B.
               2. T.B. was under the age of fourteen years.
               3. The defendant acted with knowledge in any one of the
       following ways:
               (a) By creating a substantial risk to T.B.’s physical, mental or
       emotional health or safety; or
               (b) By an intentional act or series of intentional acts, uses
       unreasonable force, torture or cruelty that results in bodily injury; or
               (c) By an intentional act or series of intentional acts, evidences
       unreasonable force, torture or cruelty which causes substantial
       mental or emotional harm to a child or minor.
               4. The defendant’s act or acts resulted in bodily injury to T.B.
               If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is
       guilty of Child Endangerment Resulting in Bodily Injury under Count
       2. If the State has proved elements 1, 2, and 3, but has failed to
       prove T.B. suffered any injury under element 4, the defendant is
       guilty of Child Endangerment. If the State has failed to prove element
       1, 2, or 3, the defendant is not guilty under Count 2.

       Trymaine acknowledges the first two elements were met for both counts 2

and 3. But he contends there is insufficient evidence he knowingly created a

substantial risk to either child’s physical, mental, or emotional safety or that his

acts resulted in “bodily injury” on T.B.

       In conducting a sufficiency-of-the-evidence review, “we are highly

deferential to the jury’s verdict. The jury’s verdict binds this court if the verdict is
                                         15

supported by substantial evidence.” State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189, 202 (Iowa

2022).    “In determining whether the jury’s verdict is supported by substantial

evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, including

all ‘legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly and reasonably be

deduced from the record evidence.’” Id. (citation omitted).

         We have already set out the evidence rather extensively. On our review,

we conclude a jury reasonably could have found that Trymaine created a

substantial risk to both children’s physical safety or emotional health when he

shoved their mother into the tub where they were bathing.            The jury could

reasonably find he created a substantial risk to T.B.’s physical safety when he

yanked the child out of the tub by the arm. The jury could reasonably find he

created a substantial risk to T.B.’s physical safety or emotional health when he

wrestled with Jodi for control of T.B. and when he was kicking Jodi while the child

was under her on the floor. The jury could reasonably find he created a substantial

risk to A.B.’s physical safety when he struggled with Jodi and Jami in the hallway,

or in leaving the two-year-old alone and unsupervised in the bathtub, or when he

carried her wet and crying out of the house and threw her into the vehicle. Simply

stated, how could he not know his actions created risk of physically, mentally, or

emotionally harming his children? There is substantial evidence to support both

convictions for child endangerment.

         We turn to Trymaine’s contention that there is insufficient evidence his

actions resulted in “bodily injury” to T.B. The jury was instructed, “The term ‘bodily

injury’ means physical pain, illness or any impairment of physical condition.” The

jury could reasonably find Trymaine caused a bodily injury to T.B. when he yanked
                                          16

the child out of the tub by the arm, causing it to “pop.” The jury also could have

easily found he caused a bodily injury to T.B. based on Jami’s testimony the child

had red marks on her face and back, the photo of the red marks on T.B.’s back,

and the testimony the child was crying. In State v. McKee, 312 N.W.2d 907, 913

(Iowa 1981), our supreme court adopted the Model Penal Code’s definition of

bodily injury explaining

               Bodily injury ordinarily “refers only to injury to the body, or to
       sickness or disease contracted by the injured as a result of injury.”
       Injury includes “an act that damages, harms, or hurts: an unjust or
       undeserved infliction of suffering or harm . . . .” Thus the ordinary
       dictionary definition of bodily injury coincides with the Model Penal
       Code definition of the term.

Id. (internal citations omitted).   “[W]elts, bruises, or similar markings are not

physical injuries per se but may be and frequently are evidence from which the

existence of a physical injury can be found.” State v. Gordon, 560 N.W.2d 4, 6

(Iowa 1997) (citation omitted). The jury could infer one-year-old T.B. suffered pain

in her arm, back, or face. There is substantial evidence to support the jury verdict

of guilty on count 3. We affirm.

       AFFIRMED.