State v. Gordon
560 N.W.2d 4 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A visible mark on the skin, such as a red mark or bruise, does not constitute a bodily injury per se. It is merely evidence from which a jury may, but is not required to, find the existence of a bodily injury, defined as physical pain, illness, or an impairment of physical condition.
Facts:
- On October 3, 1995, Thomas A. Gordon was in Mary Johnston's home with several other people, including Jeremiah Fry.
- Unprovoked, Gordon stood up, spun around, and kicked Fry in the chest.
- As he kicked Fry, Gordon said, “Die pale-face pumpkin head.”
- The kick left a red mark on Fry's chest to the right of his sternum.
- A police officer later observed a "reddening" on Fry’s chest and a heel imprint on his shirt.
- There was no direct evidence that Fry suffered any pain or illness as a result of the kick.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Iowa charged Thomas A. Gordon with assault causing bodily injury in an Iowa trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court gave a jury instruction stating that a red mark or bruise constitutes an impairment of physical condition and is therefore a bodily injury.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Gordon.
- The trial court sentenced Gordon to jail time, probation, and a fine.
- Gordon (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Iowa, challenging the validity of the jury instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a jury instruction that defines a red mark or bruise as a per se impairment of physical condition, and therefore a bodily injury, improperly invade the province of the jury by directing a verdict on an element of the charged offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Lavorato, Justice
Yes. A jury instruction defining a red mark as a bodily injury per se improperly invades the province of the jury. The court adopted the Model Penal Code’s definition of bodily injury: “physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.” An impairment of physical condition is a deviation from normal health. While a red mark or bruise may be evidence of such an impairment, it is not the impairment itself. It is for the jury, as the trier of fact, to determine whether the evidence proves the existence of an injury. By instructing the jury that a red mark is an impairment and therefore an injury, the trial court assumed a fact in controversy and effectively directed a verdict for the State on a critical element of the offense, which is reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental separation of duties between the judge and jury in a criminal trial, specifically that the jury is the sole trier of fact for all elements of an offense. The court clarifies the distinction between evidence of an element (a red mark) and the element itself (a bodily injury). This holding requires the prosecution in future assault cases to prove that an actual impairment, pain, or illness occurred, rather than simply relying on the presence of a visible mark to satisfy the 'bodily injury' element. It prevents judges from simplifying the jury's role by pre-determining factual questions.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Gordon