{"id":341,"date":"2009-10-16T19:28:30","date_gmt":"2009-10-16T23:28:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=341"},"modified":"2009-10-16T19:28:30","modified_gmt":"2009-10-16T23:28:30","slug":"not-guilty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.peoplevstate.com\/?p=341","title":{"rendered":"Not Guilty . . ."},"content":{"rendered":"
. . . of domestic battery as a Class D felony, though guilty of the lesser included offense of battery as a Class B misdemeanor, was the jury’s verdict today in a case I defended. “Bodily injury” is a necessary element of the former, while the latter only requires knowingly touching another person in a “rude, insolent or angry” manner. “Bodily injury” is ambiguously defined in the Indiana statutes<\/a> as “any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain.”<\/p>\n Closing argument was interesting. I emphasized to the jury that they are the judges of both the law and the facts, per their jury instructions. (The Indiana Constitution provides<\/a> \u201cIn all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.\u201d) I also urged on the jury (without actually citing or quoting) the substance of the following interpretation of the statutory definition of “bodily injury” from Judge Crone’s concurrence in Lewis v. State, <\/em>898 N.E.2d (Ind.Ct.App. 2008):<\/p>\n I respectfully disagree, however, with the [lead opinion’s suggestion] that any degree of pain, no matter how slight, is sufficient to constitute an “impairment of physical condition” and therefore constitute “bodily injury” . . . <\/a>. I believe that something more than the mere sensation of pain is required; to hold otherwise is to read “impairment” out of the statute.<\/p>\n