Justices probe sufficiency of evidence and jury instructions on "serious bodily injury" in Carbajal appeal

At oral argument in the Supreme Judicial Court on Oct. 12, 2025, Attorney Katherine Jansen told the justices the aggravated portion of the verdict may not be supported because the jury returned a general verdict slip and was instructed on multiple aggravating theories, including serious bodily injury and joint venture.

"And so where we don't know what aggravating factor ... it was clear from the closing that it was during the commission of a felony, but they weren't so instructed and the verdict slips were general. We can't say for certain which aggravating factor they found. And so I think the aggravated portion probably would have to be vacated," Jansen said, suggesting the court could affirm on a lesser included offense and remand for resentencing.

Jansen acknowledged the evidence supporting serious bodily injury was limited: the victim testified that the defendant pulled her by the hair and that several hours later she reported a headache. She argued the model superior court jury instructions do not define serious bodily injury and that if the Legislature intended a different, more expansive statutory definition it could have done so.

The justices pressed counsel about preservation of the issue at trial and about statutory indicators of legislative intent. Jansen said the defense did not preserve a larger statutory definition at the charge conference but contended the general-verdict pattern and joint-venture instruction made the aggravated finding unreliable.

No ruling was made from the bench; the court took the arguments under advisement and will decide whether the aggravated portion of the verdict must be vacated and whether resentencing is required.