Elmer J. Bailey v. State of Indiana
979 N.E.2d 133
Ind.2012Background
- Elmer Bailey and Farrenquai Bailey were married; Elmer drank and threatened Farrenquai, poking her in the forehead causing pain.
- Elmer shoved Farrenquai indoors during a later encounter; police were called and again instructed him to leave.
- Bailey was charged with battery and domestic battery, both class A misdemeanors, later enhanced to class D felonies due to a prior domestic battery conviction.
- At a bench trial, the State presented only Farrenquai’s testimony; Elmer denied touching her; the court found him guilty and sentenced two years in prison.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished decision, holding that bodily injury requires impairment of physical condition, not mere pain.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to resolve whether pain alone can constitute bodily injury under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does physical pain alone satisfy bodily injury under the statute? | Bailey argues pain must rise to impairment. | Bailey asserts threshold impairment is required. | Yes; any physical pain suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. State, 272 Ind. 65, 396 N.E.2d 348 (1979) (physical pain considered bodily injury)
- Lewis v. State, 438 N.E.2d 289 (Indiana 1982) (physical pain can support bodily injury)
- Gebhart v. State, 525 N.E.2d 603 (Indiana 1988) (injury need not require medical treatment)
- Hanic v. State, 406 N.E.2d 335 (Indiana App. 1980) (interpretation of bodily injury includes pain as impairment)
- Toney v. State, 961 N.E.2d 57 (Indiana Ct. App. 2012) (discusses bodily injury threshold in context of impairment)
- Vaillancourt v. State, 695 N.E.2d 606 (Indiana Ct. App. 1998) (bright-line considerations in pain versus injury)