488 P.3d 830
Or. Ct. App.2021Background:
- Defendant (Tyler James Miller) was charged with two counts of fourth-degree assault (domestic violence) after an incident with his intimate partner, S, despite a no-contact order.
- Police found S with two black eyes and a cut above her right eye; photographs taken about a week later showed deep purple bruising around both eyes and her nose and a laceration above the right eye.
- S was pregnant at the time; she testified at trial that drug use affected her memory and she could not clearly recall the pain, but said bruises lasted about a month and that two black eyes would likely cause pain.
- Grand jury testimony (introduced through a witness) related that defendant punched S between the eyes with closed fists, knocked her down, kept punching her, and caused bleeding and bruising.
- Defendant waived a jury; after the state rested, he moved for a judgment of acquittal arguing the state failed to prove the statutory element of "substantial pain."
- The trial court denied the motion based on the photos and testimony; defendant was convicted on both counts and appealed, arguing the evidence was too speculative to prove "substantial pain."
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the element of "physical injury" defined as "substantial pain" under ORS 163.015(7) and ORS 163.160 | State: Photographs showing significant facial bruising and laceration, grand jury account of repeated punches and bleeding, and testimony that bruises lasted about a month support a reasonable inference of ample, non‑fleeting pain | Miller: Victim’s trial testimony was equivocal, claiming impaired memory and only "momentary" pain; photos and other testimony are speculative and do not prove pain beyond conjecture | Court of Appeals: Affirmed — the combined photographic and testimonial evidence permitted a rational factfinder to infer that S suffered ample, consequential (not fleeting) pain, so the evidence was sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Casey, 346 Or 54 (2009) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence — view facts in light most favorable to the state)
- State v. Poole, 175 Or App 258 (2001) (defines "physical injury" to include "substantial pain" and discusses degree/duration)
- State v. Rennells, 253 Or App 580 (2012) ("substantial" pain means ample/considerable, not fleeting)
- State v. Guzman, 276 Or App 208 (2016) (photographs plus corroborating statements can support a reasonable inference of substantial, lasting pain)
- State v. Long, 286 Or App 334 (2017) (insufficient where victim denied significant pain and physical signs were minimal)
- State v. Lewis, 266 Or App 523 (2014) (insufficient where victim did not testify to pain and physical evidence was lacking)