State v. Pham, 2016 UT App 105

Stone River Law – Criminal Defense Team

HERE FOR YOU WHEN IT MATTERS.


Relevant Issue

What evidence is sufficient to support a finding of serious bodily injury?

Facts

After an argument, Pham pulled a gun and shot an unknown victim. The bullet entered the victimโ€™s abdomen, exited through his scrotum, and lodged in the victimโ€™s leg. The victim stayed in the hospital for three days, and could not walk for two weeks without pain. At trial, Pham was convicted of discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury. Pham appealed his conviction, contending that there was not sufficient evidence of the victimโ€™s injuries to reach the level of serious bodily injury.

Rule

The decision of whether serious bodily injury was inflicted lies with a jury.

Analysis

The Court noted that when addressing an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, the Court will review the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn thereof in light most favorable to the juryโ€™s verdict. Concerning Phamโ€™s claim, Utah Criminal Code defines serious bodily injury as โ€œbodily injury that creates or causes serious permanent disfigurement, protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or creates a substantial risk of death.โ€ Here, the Court addressed the substantial risk of death element.

When Pham shot the victim, the bullet first passed through the Victimโ€™s abdomen and then permanently lodged in his leg. The Court noted that in Phamโ€™s argument he did not mention any case where an appellate court found that a gunshot wound was insufficient to reach the level of serious bodily injury. The Court stated referenced their prior case law in State v. Bloomfield, 2003 which said, โ€œ[I]t is within the province of the jury to consider the means and manner by which the victimโ€™s injuries were inflicted along with the attendant circumstances in determining whether a defendant caused serious bodily injury.โ€

Holding

The Court held that the jury had the decision of whether the victimโ€™s injuries reached the level of serious bodily injury and that Pham had not alleged any case that would cast doubt on the decision reached here by the jury. The Court affirmed Phamโ€™s conviction.