State v. Hannah, 873 N.W.2d 668

On Oct. 8, 2014, police responded to a report of a vehicle in which a male (Jeremy Hannah) was seen repeatedly striking a female passenger; officers arrested Hannah and charged him with simple assault–domestic violence (N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-17-01(1)(a), (2)(b)).
A civilian eyewitness testified she saw Hannah pummel the female, observed the female raise her arms in protection, and saw the female exit the vehicle with a red face; the witness said she would have felt pain under the same circumstances.
Officers testified Hannah had a fresh laceration on his hand; one officer observed no visible injuries to the female but said victims often show no immediate visible injury in domestic assaults.
The alleged victim and Hannah both testified: the victim denied being struck or feeling pain and produced photos taken about two hours later showing no facial injury; Hannah admitted minor contact and a cut on his arm.
The jury convicted Hannah of class B misdemeanor simple assault–domestic violence; the district court denied posttrial Rule 29 motions and Hannah appealed challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove "bodily injury" (includes physical pain)	Evidence (eyewitness account, officer testimony about distress and lack of visible injuries being common, Hannah's cut) supports inference victim suffered pain/impairment	Conviction insufficient because victim testified she felt no pain and photos show no injury; pain is subjective and only victim can testify to it	Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution's favor, a rational juror could infer bodily injury (pain) despite victim's testimony and lack of visible injury

State v. Rufus, 868 N.W.2d 534 (N.D. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence in criminal appeals)
State v. Corman, 765 N.W.2d 530 (N.D. 2009) (same; jury credibility and evidence weighing belong to the jury)
State v. Bitz, 757 N.W.2d 565 (N.D. 2008) (jurors may draw rational inferences based on common knowledge)
State v. Bell, 649 N.W.2d 243 (N.D. 2002) (weighing evidence and judging credibility are jury functions)
Barta v. Hinds, 578 N.W.2d 553 (N.D. 1998) (jury determinations about pain and noneconomic damages rest on common knowledge and discretion)
State v. Miller, 357 N.W.2d 225 (N.D. 1984) (conviction cannot rest on mere speculation or conjecture)
State v. Azure, 525 N.W.2d 654 (N.D. 1994) (beyond a reasonable doubt does not require elimination of all possible doubt)
Rogers v. State, 396 N.E.2d 348 (Ind. 1979) (pain as a phenomenon of common experience and understanding)
State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116 (Iowa 2004) (noting challenges in prosecuting domestic violence when victims are uncooperative)