Page 36 - TPA Journal May June 2022

of appeals also held that the trial court erred in Sughrue’s ear, namely his earlobe. The State
denying Appellant’s requested jury instruction further alleged that Appellant used or exhibited a
because Appellant had presented more than a deadly weapon, Appellant’s teeth, during
scintilla of evidence raising the lesser offense of the commission of the offense. At trial, the State
assault. sought to prove serious bodily injury by showing
Sughrue suffered serious permanent
We granted review to determine whether disfigurement. James Baker, the paramedic who
Appellant’s testimony combined with other responded to the residence and initially treated
evidence introduced at trial could have provided Sughrue, testified that Sughrue’s primary injury
the jury with a valid, rational alternative to the was the amputation of his left earlobe. According
greater offense of aggravated assault. We hold that to Baker, Sughrue was alert and able to
it could have. On the record presented in this case, communicate when EMS arrived. While Baker
there was more than a scintilla of evidence from testified that he saw “quite a bit of blood” at the
which the jury could have rationally doubted that scene, he also acknowledged that Sughrue’s ear
Appellant caused serious permanent disfigurement had almost stopped bleeding on its own by the time
by biting off the victim’s earlobe. Baker arrived. Baker also testified that Sughrue
Therefore, Appellant was entitled to his requested was able to stand and walk to the ambulance for
instruction on the lesser-included offense of assault. further treatment, after which Baker and his
partner transported Sughrue to the hospital without
As alluded to above, this case arises from a lights and sirens.
physical altercation between Appellant and
Appellant’s ex-wife’s new boyfriend, Taylor Baker explained to the jury that paramedics
Sughrue. In the early morning hours of July 17, generally only transported a patient with lights and
2016, Appellant went to the home he had sirens when the patient’s injuries were critical, or
previously shared with his ex-wife. Though the the patient was experiencing a life-threatening
State and Appellant offered different versions of the emergency. The State did not ask for Baker’s
sequence of events at trial and disputed whether opinion regarding the severity of the injury to
Appellant or Sughrue was the primary aggressor, Sughrue’s ear, but on cross-examination Baker
no one contests that a physical altercation between agreed that the injury was not life-threatening.
Appellant and Sughrue took place. Both parties Taylor Sughrue also testified for the State at trial.
agree that Appellant bit Sughrue’s ear during that During his testimony, the State introduced
physical altercation. And both parties agree that as photographs of Sughrue’s injury taken
a result, Appellant severed Sughrue’s earlobe from the day of the assault, photographs of Sughrue’s
the rest of Sughrue’s ear. Appellant then left the injury with stitches, and photographs of Sughrue’s
residence. Appellant’s ex-wife called 911, and scarred ear taken shortly before trial.
police and EMS responded to the scene. After
locating Sughrue’s severed earlobe in the master Sughrue also stepped in front of the jury during his
bedroom, paramedics transported Sughrue and the testimony and afforded the jurors the opportunity
earlobe by ambulance to St. David’s Round Rock to assess the severity of the injury themselves.
Medical Center. The doctors were unable to save When asked whether he considered himself
the earlobe. permanently disfigured as a result of the assault,
Sughrue testified that he did.
The State charged Appellant with aggravated
assault, alleging that Appellant caused Sughrue However, Sughrue did not express any opinion as
serious bodily injury by biting off a portion of to whether he considered the disfigurement to be

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