Blea v. State
483 S.W.3d 29
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2016Background
- Juan Blea assaulted his then-girlfriend, Justina Fassett, after accusing her of infidelity; the assault involved punches and possibly kicks while their child was present.
- Fassett experienced severe pain and breathing difficulty; first responders observed facial cuts/bruises, chest pain, and she was transported by ambulance.
- Medical treatment revealed a collapsed lung (required chest tube), a lacerated liver, two rib fractures, and a fractured maxillary sinus bone; she was hospitalized four days and off work for about a month.
- Blea was convicted of first-degree aggravated assault of a family member, the jury finding he caused "serious bodily injury" while using a deadly weapon.
- The Second Court of Appeals reversed, holding the evidence legally insufficient to show "serious bodily injury," reasoning the court should assess risk after medical treatment; one justice dissented.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals granted review to resolve whether the risk-of-death inquiry should consider amelioration by medical treatment and ultimately reinstated the trial court conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Blea) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports that Blea caused "serious bodily injury" (substantial risk of death) | Jury could infer substantial risk of death from collapsed lung and lacerated liver as inflicted | Court of appeals majority: must consider victim's condition after medical treatment; post-treatment evidence did not show substantial risk of death | The CCA held courts must assess the injury "as inflicted" (without discounting successful medical treatment); evidence was sufficient to show a substantial risk of death and thus serious bodily injury |
| Proper legal standard: consider effects of medical treatment when assessing "substantial risk of death" | Moore plurality: consider post-treatment risk (treatment is a fact of modern life) | Brown/Stuhler line: assess injury as inflicted, not after amelioration by treatment | The CCA disavowed Moore on this point and adopted Brown/Stuhler: do not consider amelioration by medical treatment when assessing serious bodily injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 605 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (injury assessed as inflicted, not after medical amelioration)
- Stuhler v. State, 218 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (reiterates Brown standard for serious bodily injury)
- Moore v. State, 739 S.W.2d 347 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (plurality held post-treatment effects may be considered; disavowed here)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (explains deference to jury on credibility and conflicting inferences)