You are here: / / THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” IN THIS ASSAULT SECOND PROSECUTION...
,

THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” IN THIS ASSAULT SECOND PROSECUTION WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s second degree assault conviction, determined the physical-injury element of the offense was not supported by legally sufficient evidence:

… [T]he evidence of the injury inflicted here, viewed objectively, established only that the correction officer sustained slight scraping and scratching, perhaps some bruising, minor swelling in the wrist, a small laceration, and abrasions or redness, without any bleeding … . Indeed, although medical staff at the correctional facility purportedly noted bruising on the correction officer’s forearm, no bruising is apparent in the photographs taken shortly after the incident, and the photographs otherwise depict only minimal redness on the correction officer’s arm and hand, a minuscule nick on the knuckle of his index finger, and a slight scratch along his arm … . People v Dowdell, 2023 NY Slip Op 01432, Fourth Dept 3-17-23

Practice Point: Here the evidence of “physical injury” was deemed legally insufficient to support the assault second conviction. The decision analyzes all of the relevant aspects of “physical injury” including pain.

 

You might also like
Suppression of Evidence Reversed—Search of Interconnected Rooms Did Not Violate Terms of Search Warrant
THE PAT DOWN SEARCH OF DEFENDANT TRAFFIC OFFENDER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY REASONABLE SUSPICION (FOURTH DEPT).
Proof of Normal Notification Procedure Sufficient to Demonstrate Defendant Was Notified of Lead-Paint-Injury Exclusion in Policy
VIOLATION OF CIVIL CONTEMPT ORDER PROPERLY ADMITTED IN GRAND LARCENY TRIAL TO SHOW LARCENOUS INTENT.
THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO A PROSPECTIVE JUROR WHO SAID HE WOULD BE INCLINED TO BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE ERROR WAS DEEMED HARMLESS, TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE DEPRIVES DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
COUNTY’S INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION WAS RATIONAL AND COULD NOT, THEREFORE, BE DISTURBED BY THE COURT; TIME LIMITS APPLICABLE TO ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS ARE DISCRETIONARY.
Court Should Not Have Deferred, Over Defense Counsel’s Objection, to Defendant’s Request that the Jury Not Be Charged on a Lesser Included Offense—To Do So Denies Defendant His Right to the Expert Judgment of Counsel

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

IF A PREMATURE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY OBLIGATIONS WAS NOT... DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF GRAND LARCENY BASED UPON OVERCHARGING HER EMPLOYER;...