State v. Fuller - 414 So. 2d 306 (La. 1982)

Rule:

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:34.1 clearly states that the intended harm is "serious bodily injury" and defines this to involve unconsciousness, extreme physical pain or protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or a substantial risk of death.

Facts:

The state charged defendant James Fuller with having committed second-degree battery upon Brent R. Brown. In the pre-trial stages of the prosecution, defendant filed a discovery motion requesting material favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilt or punishment. In response to the request, the prosecutor allowed defense counsel to examine his entire file in the case. In the file was a statement by James Brannon that he was an eyewitness to the offense, that defendant was the aggressor and that the victim had done nothing to instigate the conflict. However, about three months after defendant's April 1, 1981 conviction, defense counsel filed a motion for a new trial based upon newly found evidence. Accompanying the motion was an affidavit by Brannon dated July 8, 1981, to the effect that the victim had instigated the incident. At the hearing on the new trial motion, defense counsel called the attention of the trial judge to the fact that the state had listed Brannon as a witness and had subpoenaed him and had had him present at trial. Defendant also claimed that the trial court erred by finding defendant guilty without sufficient evidence that he had specific intent to inflict serious bodily injury.

Issue:

1. Did the trial court err in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial? 
2. Did the trial court err by finding defendant guilty of committing second-degree battery? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial, noting that the defense counsel admitted at the hearing on the motion for a new trial that he had read the prosecutor's file and knew that Brannon was an eyewitness to the offense. However, for whatever reason, defense counsel did not interview the potential witness. Had counsel done so pre-trial, he could have learned whether Brannon would then have been prepared to testify in a manner exculpatory to his client. He could even have requested a recess mid-trial to talk with Brannon in the courtroom after the state closed its case without calling Brannon, then present and sitting in the rear of the courtroom. The affidavit accompanying the motion was executed three months post trial and while laying instigation at the foot of the victim, did not say that Brannon would have so testified at trial. Anent the second issue, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove intent where defendant was a 30-year-old bouncer, who was not working on the night of the battery, and the victim was approximately 19 years old, and considerably smaller. Defendant hit the victim with a blow sufficient to knock him over a pool table, causing permanent vision impairment. Therefore, defendant possessed the intent to do serious bodily harm. Defendant's conviction and sentence were affirmed.