From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commonwealth v. Arce

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Jan 22, 2020
96 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (Mass. App. Ct. 2020)

Opinion

18-P-1693

01-22-2020

COMMONWEALTH v. Joel ARCE.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28

Following a bench trial, the defendant, Joel Arce, was convicted of assault and battery on a family or household member in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13M (a ), and assault and battery causing serious bodily injury in violation of G. L. c. 265, § 13A (b ) (i). On appeal, he argues that the evidence of serious bodily injury was insufficient, standing alone, to support a conviction and that expert testimony was required. He also claims, as a separate issue, that the victim's testimony was "completely and obviously unreliable" and likewise insufficient to support a conviction. We affirm.

Background. A fact finder could have found the following facts. The defendant and the victim had been in a romantic relationship for six years prior to the assault. On May 25, 2017, while the defendant was at the victim's home, a tenth-floor apartment in Springfield, the two began arguing. When the victim attempted to leave the apartment the defendant grabbed her by the wrists. As the struggle continued outside the apartment and into the hallway, he grabbed her by the waist and threw her down on the tiled floor. The right side of her back hit the ground first and she "felt a very strong pain, like a cramp." The victim stood up and ran in a panic down the stairs into the lobby of her apartment building, where she ultimately met with the police and provided her statement.

At the time of the incident, the victim was already suffering from two herniated discs in her back and as a result of the pain would periodically receive steroid injections. In fact, she had received a steroid injection on May 24, the day prior to the incident. Per her testimony, the victim was instructed to rest for a week after each steroid injection.

She was taken to a hospital where magnetic resonance imaging revealed a fractured transverse process -- a small bone fracture in her back. To treat the injury, doctors prescribed physical therapy as well as a prescription for a new pain medication. In the weeks following the assault the victim had difficulty walking and required the use of a walker.

As indicated supra, the defendant was charged with assault and battery on a family or household member, and assault and battery causing serious bodily injury. At trial, which took place over a year after the incident, the victim testified that she could no longer "mop" or "lift anything heavy," and that she was forced to spend most of her time lying down. Compared to her previous back pain, she said that "the pain has been worse and my back is not working the way it used to work before," and that previously, she had never needed help walking after her injections. Additionally her medical records from the hospital were admitted in evidence. The records included a detailed description of the victim's fracture in clear, understandable lay person's language. The defendant was convicted of assault and battery on a family or household member and assault and battery causing serious bodily injury. The defendant timely appealed.

The defendant also was charged with assault by means of a dangerous weapon, G. L. c. 265, § 15B (b ) ; he was acquitted of that charge.

The medical records indicated that the victim had suffered a "[m]inimally displaced right L1 transverse process fracture." A section of the records explained the injury in more detail:

"You have fractured a transverse process. There are two transverse processes that extend off each vertebra, one on each side. This is where the muscles and ligaments of the back attach to the spine. One of these muscles is the psoas muscle, which controls the forward bending motion of the upper body and thighs. This muscle attaches to the transverse process.

"During a fall, car accident, or other forceful injury, the psoas muscle can contract strongly as the body tries to protect itself. The contraction can be strong enough to pull off a chip of bone from the transverse process.

"This fracture does not cause any injury to the spinal cord or nerves. However, the forces that cause this fracture can also cause internal bleeding or other injuries that might not be clear at the time of your first exam. Be sure to watch for the symptoms listed under ‘When to seek medical advice.’

"This injury will take 4 to 6 weeks to heal. It can be treated at home with rest and medicine for pain and swelling. A back brace (called TSLO) or abdominal binder may be prescribed to reduce pain by limiting motion at the fracture site.

"After the healing time, an additional 3 or 4 weeks of gradual return to former activities is usually advised."

Discussion. 1. Sufficiency of the evidence. In considering insufficiency claims, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth to determine whether "any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 677 (1979), quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 (1979). "A conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence and the permissible inferences drawn therefrom." Commonwealth v. Roy, 464 Mass. 818, 824 (2013). In order to prove that "serious bodily injury" occurred, "[t]he Commonwealth may prove that a defendant caused bodily injury that resulted either in (1) a permanent disfigurement; (2) loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb, or organ; or (3) a substantial risk of death." Commonwealth v. Scott, 464 Mass. 355, 357 (2013).

For his position, the defendant primarily relies on Scott, 464 Mass. 355. In Scott, medical records not explained by an expert witness that showed the victim suffered a "grade II" liver laceration, along with evidence that the victim experienced pain, were found to be insufficient to prove serious bodily injury under the statute. Id. at 362. Here, however, we can conclude that the evidence at trial was sufficient to prove that serious bodily injury occurred. Unlike Scott, where the victim merely testified to suffering pain, this victim testified to her loss of a bodily function, including that after the assault, she was no longer able to do routine tasks and was forced to spend the majority of her time lying down because sitting or standing was too painful. Additionally, unlike Scott, this victim's medical records were not "unexplained technical phrases" but were a careful and plain explanation of the scope of her injury. Id. That the victim had suffered a previous back injury is no concern where the impact of the new injury -- a fracture within the back -- was distinctive and clearly articulated. See id. at 364 n.9 ("In those rare instances where issues of injury and causation are ‘within general human knowledge and experience,’ an expert may not be necessary"). The defendant's argument is without merit.

Nonetheless, Scott concluded that expert testimony was not required so long as the Commonwealth establishes both the severity of the injury and the injury's effect on normal bodily function in sufficient detail. Scott, 464 Mass. at 364. "While medical testimony may not be required in every instance to establish that a victim has suffered serious injury resulting in impairment to an organ, the Commonwealth bears the burden of establishing the severity of an injury through its impact on the structure of the victim's organ and its consequent effect on the ability of the organ to perform its usual function." Id. at 364.

"The victim's testimony provided little evidence regarding the impact of the injury to her liver. She said that, following the attack, she was in pain, and her father drove her to a hospital" (footnote omitted). Scott, 464 Mass. at 360-361.

Unlike a liver laceration, we can presume that a trier of fact understands the function of the back. "[A]n expert opinion is admissible only where it will help jurors interpret evidence that lies outside of common experience" (quotation omitted). Commonwealth v. Canty, 466 Mass. 535, 541 (2013).

2. Victim's testimony. The defendant also argues that inconsistencies in the victim's testimony renders the evidence insufficient. The claim is baseless, as the defendant raises "nothing more than an issue of credibility, an issue that is solely within the province" of the finder of fact. Commonwealth v. James, 424 Mass. 770, 785 (1997). "Inconsistent testimony ... does not render the evidence insufficient." Commonwealth v. Ruci, 409 Mass. 94, 97 (1991).

Judgments affirmed.


Summaries of

Commonwealth v. Arce

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT
Jan 22, 2020
96 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (Mass. App. Ct. 2020)
Case details for

Commonwealth v. Arce

Case Details

Full title:COMMONWEALTH v. JOEL ARCE.

Court:COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT

Date published: Jan 22, 2020

Citations

96 Mass. App. Ct. 1118 (Mass. App. Ct. 2020)
140 N.E.3d 947