Blea, Juan, PD-0245-15

Juan Blea was convicted of first-degree aggravated assault of a family member, punishment five years.
The Second Court of Appeals reversed, finding evidence insufficient for serious bodily injury but sufficient for use of a deadly weapon, and remanded for conviction modification and new punishment trial.
Texas Court granted discretionary review; Appellant and State submitted briefs; cross-petition denied.
Appellant argues the State failed to prove serious bodily injury; evidence showed bruising, rib fractures, and other issues but no protracted loss or life-threatening risk.
Medical testimony was withdrawn from evidence; treating nurse could not establish Justina suffered serious bodily injury.
Court addresses the legal sufficiency standard and whether the injuries meet the statutory definition of serious bodily injury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence proves serious bodily injury	Blea contends injuries were serious bodily injury as defined by statute.	State asserts evidence supports serious bodily injury under the statutory definition.	Evidence is legally insufficient to prove serious bodily injury.

Moore v. State, 739 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (defines serious bodily injury and its relation to bodily injury)
Williams v. State, 235 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence; keeps focus on evidence viewed in light of verdict)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (federal standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Lane v. State, 111 S.W.3d 203 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2004) (insufficient evidence for serious bodily injury where no protracted loss or life-endangering risk shown)
Sizemore v. State, 387 S.W.3d 824 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2013) (requires serious evidence of prolonged impairment beyond temporary conditions)
Hernandez v. State, 946 S.W.2d 10 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1997) (limits on proving serious bodily injury with lay testimony)