Page 43 - TPA Jourtnal September October 2023

out the law, is authorized by the indictment, does protracted loss or impairment of the function of any
not unnecessarily increase the State’s burden of bodily member or organ.”
proof or unnecessarily restrict the State’s theories of
liability, and adequately describes the particular In examining sufficiency questions surrounding the
offense for which the defendant was tried.” “As element of serious bodily injury, this Court’s
authorized by the indictment” means the statutory precedent has indicated that the degree of risk
elements of the offense as modified by the charging posed by the injury, or the disfiguring or impairing
instrument. qualities of the injury, should be evaluated based
on the injury as inflicted, rather than after the
Here, Appellant was charged with and convicted of ameliorating effects of medical treatment.
first-degree aggravated assault on a family member. Specifically, in Blea v. State, we noted that the
A person commits ordinary assault if he definition of serious bodily injury plainly “refers to
“intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes the injury caused by the offender, and it does not
bodily injury to another.” The offense is elevated to require consideration of any medical treatment that
first-degree aggravated assault if “the actor uses a may have lessened the impact of the injury.” Thus,
deadly weapon during the commission of the in determining whether a bodily injury creates a
assault and causes serious bodily injury to a person substantial risk of death, a court should consider
whose relationship to or association with the “the disfiguring and impairing quality of the bodily
defendant is described by (the is elevated to first- injury as it was inflicted on a complainant by an
degree aggravated assault if “the actor uses a offender,” and should “not consider the
deadly weapon during the commission of the amelioration or exacerbation of an injury by
assault and causes serious bodily injury to a person actions not attributable to the offender, such as
whose relationship to or association with the medical treatment.”
defendant is described by (the Family Code), i.e., a
Moreover, we have recognized that expert medical
family member, a member of the defendant’s
household, or a person with whom the defendant testimony is not strictly required to establish serious
has a “dating relationship.” bodily injury. We have further observed that an
injured person’s lay testimony about the
Thus, based on the statutory language as modified seriousness of her injuries may support a finding of
by the indictment, the hypothetically correct jury serious bodily injury. And, jurors are permitted “to
charge here would include the following elements: apply common sense, knowledge, and experience
( 1 ) gained in the ordinary affairs of life in drawing
Appellant; (2) knowingly or intentionally; (3) reasonable inferences from the evidence presented
caused serious bodily injury to Melendez; (4) who to it in order to conclude that a particular injury
was a member of Appellant’s household or a constitutes ‘serious bodily injury.’”
person with whom he had a “dating relationship;”
In view of the foregoing law and substantive
and (5) in doing so, he used a deadly weapon.
Given the scope of the ground on which we principles, and viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the
granted review, we will consider only the third
element—whether a rational juror could have jury was not irrational in concluding that
found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Melendez Melendez’s gunshot wounds posed a substantial
suffered serious bodily injury as a result of risk of death and thus constituted serious bodily
Appellant’s conduct. The Penal Code defines injury. The record in this case shows that Melendez
“bodily injury” as “physical pain, illness, or any sustained two gunshot wounds from close range to
impairment of physical condition.” It further her chest and right thigh. She testified that she was
defines “serious bodily injury” as “bodily injury bleeding, and this was corroborated by the photos
that creates a substantial risk of death or that causes of the apartment taken in the aftermath of the
shooting which showed a significant amount of
death, serious permanent disfigurement, or
blood around the apartment, as well as by the

Sept/Oct 2023 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 36