D.A. v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1707-JV-1495
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 20, 2017Background
- On November 16, 2016, after a school-bus altercation between students, D.A. picked up A.C., carried him over his shoulder, and slammed him to the ground; A.C. struck concrete and complained of severe pain.
- A.C. received emergency treatment and underwent surgery two days later to repair a fractured clavicle; the repair required an implant with seven screws.
- A.C. missed two weeks of school, wore a sling for ~3 months, and required short-term pain medication and follow-up therapy.
- The State charged D.A. in juvenile court with battery resulting in serious bodily injury (Level 5 felony if an adult); the court held a fact‑finding hearing and entered a true finding.
- At the hearing, D.A. and witnesses testified that A.C. had provoked or shoved D.A.; A.C. and his mother testified he did not provoke and that he experienced severe pain and functional impairment after the incident.
- The juvenile court adjudicated D.A. delinquent for battery resulting in serious bodily injury and placed him on probation; D.A. appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to show serious bodily injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether A.C.'s injuries constituted "serious bodily injury" under IC definition | State: clavicle fracture requiring surgery with seven screws, extreme pain, missed school, sling, and protracted recovery satisfy the definition | D.A.: injury was a single act, temporary recovery, not protracted or permanent — at most moderate bodily injury warranting misdemeanor/Level 6 finding | Court: Affirmed — evidence sufficient for serious bodily injury; fact‑finder entitled to deference |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 813 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. 2004) (fact‑finder given considerable deference in assessing whether injury is serious)
- M.T.V. v. State, 66 N.E.3d 960 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (State must prove delinquency elements beyond a reasonable doubt; appellate review limited to evidence and reasonable inferences supporting judgment)
- Mann v. State, 895 N.E.2d 119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (definitions of “protracted” and “impairment” relevant to serious bodily injury analysis)
- Whitlow v. State, 901 N.E.2d 659 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (serious vs. non‑serious bodily injury is a question of degree for the fact‑finder)