State v. White, 2011 UT App 162

White appeals his third degree felony assault conviction under Utah law, challenging sufficiency of evidence for substantial bodily injury.
On March 2, 2009, on a public transit train, White and his cousins attacked Dexter Thomas after an encounter; Thomas performed no provocation.
Derringer initiated confrontation with racial slurs; after a scuffle on the platform, White, Derringer, and Jamison assaulted Thomas on the platform.
Thomas sustained a small laceration on the right temple that bled significantly for about 30 minutes and left a 2–3 inch scar observed months later.
White fled the scene; he was convicted of third degree felony assault and other charges; trial included conflicting eyewitness testimony.
The State argued the injury constituted substantial bodily injury; White argued there was insufficient evidence to meet that standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thomas's facial scar qualifies as substantial bodily injury	State argues scar satisfies substantial bodily injury.	White argues no substantial bodily injury; scar not protracted or impairing function.	Yes; sufficient evidence supported substantial bodily injury.
Whether the jury could rely on Thomas's and Peterson's testimony over Geer/White	State contends witness credibility resolved in favor of State's account.	White contends inconsistencies undermine guilt.	Yes; jury credibility determinations supported conviction.

State v. Smith, 927 P.2d 649 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (credibility not reweighed by appellate review)
State v. Gardner, 167 P.3d 1074 (Utah 2007) (sufficiency reviewed by reasonable-inference standard)
West Valley City v. Majestic Inv. Co., 818 P.2d 1311 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (devotes devil's advocate approach to marshaling evidence)
State v. Brown, 948 P.2d 337 (Utah 1997) (standard for insufficiency when evidence is inconclusive)
State v. Day, 572 P.2d 703 (Utah 1977) (jury should be given deference in interpreting ordinary terms)