942 N.W.2d 269
S.D.2020Background
- In October 2018 at the Zoo Bar in Aberdeen, Korey Ware punched Taylor Kwas unexpectedly after Kwas approached Ware's girlfriend.
- Kwas sustained a mandibular (jaw) fracture that required surgical wiring shut for ~3 weeks, sedation, lengthy recovery, and a 37-pound weight loss.
- A grand jury indicted Ware on aggravated assault (SDCL 22-18-1.1(4)) and alternative simple-assault counts; the simple-assault counts were dismissed before trial and the State tried the aggravated-assault felony.
- At trial the State presented Kwas and Dr. Nathan Phillips (treatment/risks) and Officer testimony; Ware did not present witnesses and moved for judgment of acquittal, which the court denied.
- A jury found Ware guilty; the court sentenced him to seven years (execution suspended) and three years’ probation. Ware appealed the denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal, arguing the injury was not a "serious bodily injury."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the injury was a "serious bodily injury" under SDCL 22-1-2(44A) for aggravated assault | State: medical testimony and treatment (broken jaw, surgical repair, prolonged recovery, risk of long-term problems) support serious bodily injury | Ware: injury was not "grave" or causing apprehension of danger to life/health/limb; comparable to less serious injuries (citing Janisch) | Affirmed. Viewing evidence in favor of the State, a rational jury could find the injury was "grave and not trivial" and gave rise to apprehension of danger; Janisch is limited and not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Solis, 931 N.W.2d 261 (S.D. 2019) (limits precedential value of Janisch and directs case-by-case analysis under statutory definition of serious bodily injury)
- State v. Janisch, 290 N.W.2d 473 (S.D. 1980) (historical comparison where bruising was held not to be serious bodily injury; confined to its facts)
- State v. Traversie, 877 N.W.2d 327 (S.D. 2016) (standard of review for denial of judgment of acquittal: de novo; view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- State v. Martin, 859 N.W.2d 600 (S.D. 2015) (articulates sufficiency review test: any rational trier of fact could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- State v. Dace, 333 N.W.2d 812 (S.D. 1983) (recognizes post-injury diagnosis can show apprehension of danger to health sufficient for serious bodily injury)
- State v. Miland, 858 N.W.2d 328 (S.D. 2014) (injury to the head can give rise to apprehension of lifelong harm; supports finding serious bodily injury)