Page 44 - TPA Jourtnal September October 2023

testimony of the security guard who indicated that In view of the totality of this evidence, we cannot
Melendez was still bleeding as she was driving agree with the court of appeals
away from the scene. After attempting to drive that the jury lacked a sufficient basis for finding
herself to the hospital, Melendez realized she serious bodily injury. In reaching this conclusion,
would not be able to make it there on her own and we emphasize that the definition for serious bodily
sought help from a police officer on the side of the injury looks to the nature of the injury as inflicted,
road. She testified that she does not remember not after the ameliorating effects of medical
anything after the ambulance arrived, suggesting treatment. Focusing solely on the nature of
that she either lost consciousness or was in shock Melendez’s injuries prior to her receiving medical
and blacked out. She also testified that she thought treatment, the gunshot wounds produced deep
she would die. Melendez’s EMS and medical lacerations that caused significant bleeding and
records show that she sustained two gunshot resulted in Melendez losing consciousness. Dr.
wounds, each producing an entry and exit wound Smith indicated that gunshot wounds can cause
ranging in size from 1.5 to 4 centimeters. She death, and he opined that the injury here was
received immediate treatment from EMS to help indeed serious bodily injury. Viewing this evidence
alleviate bleeding. Once at the hospital, she in its totality, the jury was free to apply its own
received emergency treatment from Dr. Smith, who common sense and knowledge of this type of injury
cleaned and stapled each of the four wounds, using to conclude that, absent timely medical treatment
a total of twelve staples. Dr. Smith testified that he to control bleeding and clean and repair the
believed Melendez suffered serious bodily injury as wounds, Melendez would have faced a substantial
a result of her injuries: risk of death. There is nothing speculative about
permitting the jury to draw these reasonable
Prosecutor: And can a gunshot wound cause inferences under the circumstances of this case.
serious bodily injury? The flaw in the court of appeals’ opinion, broadly
speaking, is that it failed to view the evidence in
Dr. Smith: Yes, it can. the light most favorable to the verdict and failed to
Prosecutor: Can a gunshot cause death?
permit the drawing of reasonable inferences by the
Dr. Smith: Yes, it can. jury. For example, the court of appeals disregarded
Melendez’s testimony that she lost consciousness
Prosecutor: Based on the location of Ms. or blacked out, noting instead that the EMS records
Melendez’s gunshot wounds, would you consider contradicted this testimony by stating that
that serious bodily injury? Melendez was alert upon arrival. But the EMS
Dr. Smith: Yes, I would. . . . reports do not necessarily negate Melendez’s
Prosecutor: Approximately how many gunshot statement that she blacked out at some point while
wounds would you say you’ve treated over the in the ambulance. And even if they did, “[w]hen
years of you being a doctor? the record supports conflicting inferences, we
Dr. Smith: Hundreds. presume that the jury resolved the conflicts in favor
Prosecutor: And out of those hundreds, have you of the verdict, and we defer to that determination.”
seen death occur?
Dr. Smith: Yes. Further, the court of appeals seemed to focus on
Prosecutor: Have you seen deaths occur from what the evidence failed to show, and ways in
being shot in the thigh area? which the evidence could have been stronger,
Dr. Smith: Not that I remember specifically. rather than analyzing whether the basic facts
Prosecutor: Have you seen deaths occur from adduced were sufficient to permit the jurors to
being shot in the chest area? rationally infer the existence of serious bodily
Dr. Smith: Yes. injury. For example, the court of appeals focused
on the fact that Melendez did not appear to have

37 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal