Opinion
14-P-1268
01-14-2016
COMMONWEALTH v. MAGNO RIVERA.
NOTICE: Summary decisions issued by the Appeals Court pursuant to its rule 1:28, as amended by 73 Mass. App. Ct. 1001 (2009), are primarily directed to the parties and, therefore, may not fully address the facts of the case or the panel's decisional rationale. Moreover, such decisions are not circulated to the entire court and, therefore, represent only the views of the panel that decided the case. A summary decision pursuant to rule 1:28 issued after February 25, 2008, may be cited for its persuasive value but, because of the limitations noted above, not as binding precedent. See Chace v. Curran, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 258, 260 n.4 (2008).
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 1:28
Following a jury trial in the Superior Court, the defendant was convicted of assault and battery, and assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon causing serious bodily injury. On appeal, the defendant argues that no rational trier of fact could have found the evidence sufficient to establish serious bodily injury beyond a reasonable doubt. We affirm.
Background. We summarize the facts in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth. See Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671, 676-677 (1979). When Jorge David Morales left the Family Dollar store in New Bedford, he was confronted by the defendant, who demanded money. Morales declined, a fight ensued, and the defendant stabbed Morales on the right side of his chest, on his arm, and multiple times on his left knee. Morales was treated at Rhode Island Hospital. The chest and arm wounds were sutured, and surgery was performed on his left knee. Medical records admitted in evidence describe the leg wound as "open wound knee leg ankle." During the operation, the surgeon discovered "a small poke hole" through a part of the knee and extended one of the lacerations "deeply" before suturing the wounds. Morales was prescribed medication and a follow-up visit was scheduled. His activity was limited while he recovered.
At trial, Morales, when referring to his knee, testified that the defendant "messed it up," and that he (Morales) still had problems with his knee as a result of the injuries. He displayed scars from the chest and arm wounds to the jury.
Discussion. The defendant contends that the evidence was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused serious bodily injury as that term is used in G. L. c. 265, § 15A(c)(i). "Serious bodily injury" is defined as "bodily injury which results in a permanent disfigurement, loss or impairment of a bodily function, limb or organ, or a substantial risk of death." G. L. c. 265, § 15A(d), inserted by St. 2002, c. 35, § 2. At issue in this case is whether the evidence of the injury to Morales's knee was sufficient to establish impairment of a limb, or whether the scars from the wounds to his chest and arm were sufficient to establish permanent disfigurement. Under the Latimore standard, the evidence is sufficient to establish both impairment of a limb and permanent disfigurement.
Impairment of a limb "occurs when, because of significant damage to its structure, its capacity to perform its usual function is compromised." Commonwealth v. Scott, 464 Mass. 355, 359 (2013). Injuries causing impairment need not be permanent or life threatening to constitute serious bodily injury. Commonwealth v. Marinho, 464 Mass. 115, 118-119 (2013) (sufficient evidence of impaired bodily function where the victim underwent reconstructive surgery on his face and had double vision for three to four months after the assault).
Here the jury saw medical records indicating that Morales sustained two stab wounds in his knee, that there was soft tissue swelling, that there was a "small poke hole" through part of the knee, and there possibly was some air within the joint. Following surgery, Morales was instructed not to drive, engage in housework, or engage in any strenuous activity. He testified at trial, more than six months after the stabbing, that he was still having problems with his knee. When these facts are combined, and viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury were entitled to conclude that the victim suffered a serious bodily injury.
The defendant's reliance on Commonwealth v. Scott, 464 Mass. 355 (2013), is misplaced. There the Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the jury could not have understood the severity of a grade II liver laceration without the help of an expert to interpret the medical records and to opine on impairment of a bodily function. Id. at 363-364. The evidence of the injuries to Morales's knee was straightforward by comparison and, coupled with Morales's testimony regarding his ongoing knee problem, was sufficient to establish impairment of a limb beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury also heard evidence that the stab wounds to Morales were sutured. He displayed the resulting scars to the jury. Even without photographs or other descriptive evidence of the scars, viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury reasonably could have inferred that such scarring, visible nearly seven months after the attack, proved permanent disfigurement beyond a reasonable doubt. We discern no error.
Judgments affirmed.
By the Court (Vuono, Grainger & Kinder, JJ.),
The panelists are listed in order of seniority. --------
/s/
Clerk Entered: January 14, 2016.