State v. McKAGUE
172 Wash. 2d 802
Wash.2011Background
- McKague shoplifted a can of smoked oysters from Chang's store and was followed into a parking lot confrontation.
- Chang grabbed McKague's sweatshirt; McKague punched Chang in the head, pushing him to the ground and causing his head to strike pavement.
- McKague left in a friend's car; Chang became dizzy, unable to stand for a time, and suffered facial bruising and head injuries.
- Medical records documented concussion without loss of consciousness, scalp contusion and lacerations, and neck/shoulder pain; imaging suggested a possible facial fracture.
- McKague was charged with first-degree robbery (inferior offense third-degree theft) and second-degree assault predicated on substantial bodily injury; jury convicted on third-degree theft and second-degree assault.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; the majority's definition of substantial bodily harm was questioned in a dissenting view.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for substantial bodily harm | McKague argues evidence shows substantial harm. | Chang's injuries fail to meet substantial bodily harm | Evidence sufficient under substantial harm standard |
| Definition of substantial in substantial bodily harm | Substantial means considerable in amount/value; trial evidence supports this. | Substantial could be misdefined; prior standard in instruction inadequate | Substantial means considerable; evidence meets the standard |
| Adequacy of appellate record (surveillance video and supplemental petition) | Video should be considered; supplemental petition should raise new arguments | Video not part of Court of Appeals record; motions untimely | Video not considered; motions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mines, 163 Wash.2d 387 (2008) (sufficiency review standard for criminal offenses)
- State v. Hovig, 149 Wash.App. 1 (2009) (red and violet marks; substantial bodily harm)
- State v. Ashcraft, 71 Wash.App. 444 (1993) (temporary but substantial disfigurement)
- State v. Hirschfelder, 170 Wash.2d 536 (2010) (avoid meaningless interpretation of 'substantial')