Page 41 - TPA Journal May June 2022

witness’s testimony can include opinions, beliefs, Given that context, Appellant’s own opinion,
or inferences as long as they are drawn from his or regardless of whether it was persuasive, was at least
her own experiences or observations. An opinion some evidence that was directly germane to the
is rationally based on perception if it is one that a lesser-included offense and could have rationally
reasonable person could draw under the cast doubt uponevidence that the injury at issue
circumstances. There is no bright line rule amounted to serious bodily injury.
indicating when an opinion is helpful, but we have
said that general evidentiary concerns, such as Because a lay witness could properly testify on the
relevance and the Rule 403’s balancing test, aid the issue of serious bodily injury under these facts,
determination. Appellant’s testimony was at least some evidence
that could have provided the jury with a valid,
Appellant’s opinion was rationally based on his rational alternative to the greater offense of
observations of the injury, both as it was inflicted aggravated assault. During his testimony,
and as the healed injury appeared at the Appellant admitted that he bit Sughrue’s earlobe
time of trial. Appellant conceded he bit Sughrue’s hard enough to sever it from the rest of the ear and
earlobe and caused the injury, which would have conceded that Sughrue’s ear was disfigured as a
given Appellant the opportunity to personally result of the bite. However, Appellant disputed that
observe the injury as it was inflicted. And, like the this disfigurement was serious at the time it was
jury, Appellant was able to observe Sughrue’s inflicted and after it had healed. He also testified
healed injury during Sughrue’s testimony at trial. that he would not notice the injury if he did not
Under these circumstances, a reasonable person know the victim and saw him walking down the
could form an opinion on whether the injury street. Because the only distinguishing feature
amounted to “serious permanent disfigurement” between assault and aggravated assault as charged
given the obvious nature of the injury. Appellant’s in the indictment is the seriousness of the injury,
opinion could also have been helpful to the jury’s Appellant’s testimony, if credited by the jury, could
determination of a fact in issue, namely whether have provided some evidence from which a jury
Appellant seriously disfigured Sughrue, given that could have rationally doubted an element of the
it was the only evidence expressly addressing the greater offense—serious bodily injury—and raised
issue. The medical records introduced by the State the lesser included offense of assault by conceding
describe the injury and the treatment, but they do his actions caused bodily injury.
not contain any medical opinion or prognosis that
the disfigurement was permanent or Moreover, Appellant’s opinion fit within the
severe. The State offered no other medical or expert context of the record developed as part of his
testimony to establish that Sughrue had suffered a defense.70 Even though there was “quite a bit
serious permanent disfigurement. of blood” at the scene of the offense, Sughrue’s ear
And, while Sughrue testified that he considered had almost stopped bleeding on its own by the time
himself to be permanently disfigured, he did not EMS arrived. Sughrue was able to stand and walk
express an opinion on whether his disfigurement to the ambulance for further treatment, after which
was serious. Accordingly, the jurors were left to EMS transported Sughrue to the hospital without
determine, based on their evaluation of the nature lights and sirens. This was because the injury was
of the injury and their common sense, knowledge, not life-threatening. Further, Sughrue was able to
and experience, whether the loss of Sughrue’s return to work the day after the assault, and he
earlobe resulted in serious permanent continued to work each day following the assault.
disfigurement.

May - June 2022 37