STATE OF MINNESOTA, IN COURT OF APPEALS, A06-1706; State of Minnesota vs. Andrew Sookhar.
Defendant appealed his convictions of first-degree aggravated robbery and felony domestic assault, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s determination that the victim suffered bodily harm, which is an element of each offense.
Defendant was charged with aggravated robbery and domestic assault after he struck his girlfriend (the victim) on the left side of her face and grabbed her cellular telephone. See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.245 (aggravated robbery), .2242, subd. 4 (felony domestic assault) (2004). “Bodily harm,” as used in the aggravated-robbery and domestic-assault statutes, means “physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7 (2004). At trial, the victim testified that the blow “hurt a little.” The victim did not suffer any discoloration, bruising, or injury.
The Defendant argued that "bodily harm" must be more than "a little pain".
The court disagreed and held:
Defendant appealed his convictions of first-degree aggravated robbery and felony domestic assault, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s determination that the victim suffered bodily harm, which is an element of each offense.
Defendant was charged with aggravated robbery and domestic assault after he struck his girlfriend (the victim) on the left side of her face and grabbed her cellular telephone. See Minn. Stat. §§ 609.245 (aggravated robbery), .2242, subd. 4 (felony domestic assault) (2004). “Bodily harm,” as used in the aggravated-robbery and domestic-assault statutes, means “physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7 (2004). At trial, the victim testified that the blow “hurt a little.” The victim did not suffer any discoloration, bruising, or injury.
The Defendant argued that "bodily harm" must be more than "a little pain".
The court disagreed and held:
Under the plain language of section 609.02, subdivision 7, pain alone is sufficient to constitute bodily harm, and the fact that the pain involved in cases cited by Sookhar was greater than the pain testified to by the victim in this case is irrelevant. The victim’s testimony in this case is sufficient to support the jury’s finding that Sookhar inflicted bodily harm.
