State v. Wright, 290 P.3d 824

Defendant babysat a 16-month-old and spanked him at least three times on the left buttock, leaving a bruise.
Doctor Betlinski described the bruise as superficial ecchymosis; the child had full mobility and no reported pain.
The next day the child appeared energetic; the mother noticed the bruise and that the child looked tired with red eyes.
Detective Kettner photographed the bruise, which was purple and brown above the left buttock; the child was difficult to restrain for photos.
At trial the court denied the acquittal motion due to impairment evidence, but the court ultimately convicted, prompting reversal; the court held there was no impairment of physical condition.
The opinion concludes the bruising did not impair the child’s bodily movement or ordinary functioning, so there was no physical injury under ORS 163.205(1)(b)(A).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bruise constitutes impairment of physical condition under ORS 163.205(1)(b)(A).	State argues the bruise and capillary bleeding show impairment.	Nakamoto says there is no impairment of physical condition.	Reversed; no impairment found.
Whether substantial pain evidence could support impairment as an alternate theory.	State suggests small pain signals could imply impairment.	Court did not reach this due to lack of impairment evidence.	Not addressed; trial court ruling resolved the issue.

State v. Higgins, 165 Or App 442 (2000) (impairment requires diminished ability or disruption of ordinary function)
State v. Hart, 222 Or App 285 (2008) (injury must disrupt skin function; gash can impair infection barrier)
State v. Jones, 229 Or App 734 (2009) (evidence of a heavy scrape may impair skin’s function)
State v. Rice, 48 Or App 115 (1980) (minor scratch not impairment; no physical injury)
State v. Cetto, 66 Or App 337 (1984) (bruise plus swelling/lip injury can show impairment)
State v. Glazier, 253 Or App 109 (2012) (pain evidence can support impairment)