Carlo v. State
209, 2016
| Del. | Nov 30, 2016Background
- Ruben Carlo, an inmate at a Level IV work-release facility, was tried in Superior Court and convicted (bench trial) of Assault in a Detention Facility and Escape After Conviction for events on April 5, 2015.
- Carlo climbed over an exterior wall to leave the facility; when he threw a bag back over the wall and jumped inside, he unexpectedly landed next to Officer Deveon Smith.
- Officer Smith attempted to detain Carlo; Carlo struck Smith in the right temple and struggled while officers subdued him. Smith sustained redness on his temple, abrasions to his left little and ring fingers, and small fractures to the little finger, missing eight days of work.
- Carlo testified he was surprised, did not know whether the person was an officer, and did not intend to harm anyone; another inmate testified Carlo did not strike or resist (trial court found that witness not credible).
- The trial court credited officer testimony and video, found Carlo intentionally punched Smith and intentionally resisted, and relied in part on statutory presumptions to infer intent to cause physical injury.
- On appeal Carlo argued insufficient evidence that he intentionally caused "physical injury" to the officer (asserting the temple redness alone was not a statutory physical injury and that he lacked intent to injure the officer's hand).
Issues
| Issue | Carlo's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence proved Carlo intentionally caused physical injury to a correctional officer while confined | Redness on the temple is not a statutory "physical injury"; Carlo did not intend the injuries to Smith’s fingers | The trial court could infer intent from Carlo’s actions and use §306(c)(1) presumption that one intends natural and probable consequences of his acts | Affirmed: a rational factfinder could infer Carlo intended to cause physical injury; the fingernail/hand injuries constituted physical injury and were reasonably foreseeable consequences of resisting |
Key Cases Cited
- Plass v. State, 457 A.2d 362 (Del. 1983) (factfinder may infer intent from defendant's conduct and natural, probable consequences)
- Harris v. State, 965 A.2d 691 (Del. 2009) (upholding use of §306(c)(1) presumption in assault context)
- Dixon v. State, 567 A.2d 854 (Del. 1989) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)