468 P.3d 1029
Or. Ct. App.2020Background
- On November 14, 2017, Fields struck the victim in the head; the impact cut her forehead and she bled.
- Police photographed the injury on November 27; photos and trial observation showed a visible forehead scar approximately 1–2 centimeters long (trial court described it as a bit over 2 cm).
- Fields was charged with multiple offenses, including second-degree assault under ORS 163.175(1)(a) for intentionally causing "serious physical injury."
- "Serious physical injury" as alleged by the state here was defined by ORS 161.015(8) to mean physical injury causing "serious and protracted disfigurement."
- After the state rested, Fields moved for a judgment of acquittal (MJOA) on the second-degree assault count; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him. Fields appealed only the second-degree assault conviction.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the denial of the MJOA under the standard that views the evidence in the light most favorable to the state to determine whether a rational factfinder could find each element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence proved the element of "serious physical injury" (i.e., "serious and protracted disfigurement") for second-degree assault | The scar’s prominence, location, size, and visibility (photographs and trial observation) made it a "serious" disfigurement | The scar (about 1–2 cm) was too small and not sufficiently prominent to qualify as "serious" under ORS 161.015(8) | Reversed and remanded on Count 1 — no reasonable factfinder could conclude the ~2 cm scar constituted "serious" protracted disfigurement; MJOA should have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 327 Or. 568, 966 P.2d 208 (1998) (standard of review for denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal)
- State v. Dazhan (Sears), 15 Or. App. 300, 516 P.2d 92 (1973) (permanent scar under eye not "serious and protracted disfigurement")
- State v. Moyer, 37 Or. App. 477, 587 P.2d 1054 (1978) (scars located in areas normally covered by clothing not within ORS 161.015(8) as interpreted)
- Lambert v. Palmateer, 187 Or. App. 528, 69 P.3d 725 (2003) (two-inch, easily visible divot in forehead can support finding of serious and protracted disfigurement)
- State v. Nguyen, 222 Or. App. 55, 191 P.3d 767 (2008) (prominent three-inch scalp scar with hair loss can be "serious and protracted disfigurement")
- State v. Alvarez, 246 Or. App. 167, 240 P.3d 26 (2010) (scalp scars visible five months after assault qualified as protracted disfigurement)
- State v. Kinsey, 293 Or. App. 208, 426 P.3d 674 (2018) (scar visible six months after assault qualified as protracted disfigurement for sentencing purposes)
- State v. Drew, 302 Or. App. 232, 460 P.3d 1032 (2020) (four–six inch forehead-to-scalp scar described as large and highly visible was significant physical injury)