49S00-8606-CR-617 | Ind. | Nov 10, 1987

514 N.E.2d 1255" court="Ind." date_filed="1987-11-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/hawkins-v-state-1985170?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1985170">514 N.E.2d 1255 (1987)

Joseph HAWKINS, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 49S00-8606-CR-617.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

November 10, 1987.

*1256 George K. Shields, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Jody Cusson-Cobb, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

DICKSON, Justice.

In this direct appeal, defendant Joseph Hawkins challenges the sufficiency of evidence in his conviction of robbery as a class A felony.

When robbery results in bodily injury, it is a class B felony. If the result is "serious bodily injury", the robbery is a class A felony. Defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the victim's bodily injury was "serious."

Under the applicable and well-established standard of review, Loyd v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 404" court="Ind." date_filed="1980-01-11" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/loyd-v-state-2053452?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="2053452">272 Ind. 404, 398 N.E.2d 1260, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 881" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1980-10-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/aldridge-v-california-9022117?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9022117">449 U.S. 881, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L. Ed. 2d 105" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1980-10-06" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/moore-v-illinois-9022115?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="9022115">66 L.Ed.2d 105, we find the judgment supported by evidence that the 67-year-old victim suffered a broken arm and a badly bruised wrist as a result of the robbery, which injuries resulted in loss of use of her hand for two and one-half months, significant pain for over seven months, and residual soreness. Pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-41-1-25, bodily injury which causes extreme pain, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, is sufficient to constitute the "serious bodily injury" element for class A robbery.

We find that there was substantial probative evidence from which the court could reasonably determine the element of "serious bodily injury" beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judgment affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.

© 2024 Midpage AI does not provide legal advice. By using midpage, you consent to our Terms and Conditions.