Kazie Sekou Cole v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A03-1605-CR-1034
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jan 13, 2017Background
- Victim G.P. and defendant Kazie Sekou Cole were friends and briefly romantically involved; on Dec. 10, 2015, an altercation occurred at Cole’s home after Cole demanded G.P.’s phone and password.
- Cole shoved and repeatedly choked G.P., who lost consciousness multiple times and was struck in the head several times.
- G.P. sustained extensive injuries: bruising and swelling of face and neck, ruptured eardrum, two broken teeth, a broken rib, and a subdural hemorrhage; she was hospitalized for three days.
- Medical testimony established that subdural hemorrhages and intracranial bleeding can be life-threatening and could have been fatal without treatment.
- The State charged Cole with rape (Level 3), aggravated battery (Level 3), and criminal confinement (Level 6); a jury convicted him of Level 3 aggravated battery and acquitted on the other counts. Cole received a 12-year sentence and appealed only the sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated battery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports conviction for Level 3 aggravated battery (injury creating substantial risk of death) | The State: G.P.’s injuries (subdural hemorrhage, multiple blunt injuries, loss of consciousness, need for hospitalization) showed a substantial risk of death | Cole: Injuries did not create a substantial risk of death because there was no external bleeding, no surgery was required, and prompt medical care prevented a fatal outcome | Affirmed: A reasonable jury could find injuries created a substantial risk of death based on observable facts and medical testimony; sufficiency of evidence standard applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. State, 957 N.E.2d 171 (Ind. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence on appeal)
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (if reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, conviction must be affirmed)
- Oeth v. State, 775 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (factors for assessing whether injuries created a substantial risk of death include observable facts, injury location, and treatment provided)
- Wilcher v. State, 771 N.E.2d 113 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (medical expert testimony not required to prove substantial risk of death)
- Young v. State, 725 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. 2000) (seriousness of bodily injury is a question of degree for the factfinder)
- Beanblossom v. State, 530 N.E.2d 741 (Ind. 1988) (blow to back of head causing semiconscious state can support finding of substantial risk of death)