ASSAULT AND BATTERY State of Oregon v. Scott Russell Kuperus Oregon Court of Appeals, 251 P3d. 240 (2011) FACTS This case arises out of a drunken altercation between defendant and the boyfriend of defendant’s girlfriend’s neighbor. Although defendant, the victim, and the witnesses each have a different version of the facts leading up to the fight, as well as different theories about the origin of the fight, the relevant facts are not in dispute. During the physical altercation, defendant bit off a portion of the victim’s ear. The victim lost the soft outer edge of his ear below the cartilage portion of the curved top of the outer ear and above the earlobe. There is a scar visible where the missing portion of the ear should be, and the victim requires a prosthetic device for his ear. Defendant was convicted of First Degree Assault (ORS 163.185) and Second Degree Assault (ORS 163.175). Procedural History The defendant moved for and was granted a bench trial. At the close of the prosecution’s case, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on both charges. Defendant’s motions were denied and defendant was found guilty on both charges. Defendant appealed. RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS 1. ORS 163.185 provides in relevant part: “(1) A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if the person “(a) Intentionally causes serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon[.]” A “dangerous weapon” is defined in ORS 161.015(1) as “any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance which under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.” 2. ORS 163.175(1)(a) second degree assault requires that the defendant “intentionally or knowingly cause serious physical injury to another. “Serious physical injury” is defined in ORS 161.015(8) and includes “physical injury which…causes another serious and protracted disfigurement.” ISSUES ON APPEAL 1. Are “teeth” a dangerous weapon as required for a conviction of first-‐degree assault?
2. Is the injury to victim’s ear sufficient to prove a “serious physical injury” as required under second-‐degree assault?
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS Defendant argues: • Teeth do not qualify as a dangerous weapon because they are not a “weapon, device, instrument, material or substance as those terms are used in the statute. • There was insufficient evidence to show the victim suffered a serious physical injury. The Prosecution argues: • The legislature intended the statute to include a wide array of tools that could be used as a dangerous weapon. • The victim suffered serious and protracted disfigurement and therefore suffered a serious physical injury.
DECISION AND REASONING The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the first-‐degree assault conviction and affirmed the second-‐degree assault conviction. The case was remanded back to the trial court for resentencing. Issue 1. The court concluded that teeth are not dangerous weapons under the statute. The court began its analysis by explaining the methodology used to interpret statutory meaning and legislative intent. The court first looks at the text and context of the statute and may consider legislative history if it appears useful to the court’s analysis. Absent a legislative definition, the court ordinarily presumes that the legislature intended terms to have their plain meaning. The court articulated dictionary definitions for “weapon, device, instrument, material and substance” and ultimately concluded that the plain meaning of the terms used in the statute suggest that “dangerous weapon” means something external to the human body and thus would not encompass the defendant’s own teeth. The court also looked at legislative history and determined that the legislature in classifying the severity of an assault, intended to distinguish between assaults committed without the use of an object external to the human body and those assaults in which such an object is used. The court dismissed the state’s argument that a “dangerous weapon” can be almost anything, and that the legislature’s attempt was to include a vast array of “tools” that might be used as weapons. The court concluded that the reference to “tools” suggests that a dangerous weapon must be an implement not a part of the perpetrator’s body. Issue 2. The court concluded that the victim’s injury suffices as a serious physical injury. The court described the victim’s injury. The lower portion of the victim’s ear is
missing. His hearing is not impaired but he requires a prosthetic replacement. There is a visible scar approximately four to five centimeters long where the portion of the ear is missing. Based on those facts, the court concluded that the trial judge had sufficient evidence to find that the victim suffered a serious and protracted disfigurement, which is sufficient to constitute a serious physical injury. APPLICATION 1. This opinion is significant because it interprets the language of the statute to exclude all body parts as constituting dangerous weapons. 2. Consider how this impacts a case where the defendant, trained in mixed martial arts, injures a victim. 3. Students’ initial reactions might be that this analysis is simple, but ask students to define each of the terms and compare definitions among the class to show how everyday words can be interpreted differently. 4. Ask students to give examples of: a. Weapons b. Device c. Instrument d. Material e. Substance 5. What types of factors would tend to show “serious physical injury?” a. Scarring? b. Loss of function/use? c. Ability to repair? 6. If a jury evaluated this case, would evidence would they find persuasive in establishing the nature and extent of the injury? HANDOUT QUESTIONS 1. What crime(s) has the defendant been convicted of? What happened to the victim? 2. What is a bench trial?
3. When interpreting the meaning of a statute, what are the two things a court will always consider? What is the third thing the court may consider? 4. What does the court mean by plain text? 5. Identify the defendant’s two main arguments. Are you persuaded? Explain why or why not. 6. How did the court rule?
7. What reasons did the court give for its decision? Do you agree or disagree? 8. Does the defendant get to go free?
9. Can you think of a better way to draft the statute so that the language is clearer?
