Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appellate panel hears challenge to 'serious bodily injury' finding in Lauper kidnapping case
Summary
At an appellate oral argument, defense counsel asked the court to remand the conviction of Mr. Lauper, arguing insufficient evidence that the victim, Ms. Pho, suffered serious bodily injury; the state said a long forehead gash, staples, persistent scar and vision problems met the standard. The court took the matter under advisement.
Appellate counsel for the defendant asked the court to remand the conviction of Mr. Lauper, arguing there was insufficient evidence that the victim, identified in court transcripts as Ms. Pho, suffered “serious bodily injury.” State counsel told the panel that the victim sustained a 3- to 4-inch, roughly 1-inch-deep gash to her forehead that required three staples, left a lasting scar and produced vision problems that persisted at least a week and, according to witnesses, until trial. The court took the matter under advisement.
The appeal centers on whether the injuries meet the statutory and case-law standard for serious bodily injury, an element that increases the severity of several criminal counts in the record. Defense counsel said permanent scarring and other injuries were questions appropriately left to a jury, and argued no reasonable jury should have concluded the injuries met the legal threshold. "I think qualifying as serious bodily injury for the permanent scarring is a jury question," defense counsel told the panel.
Assistant Attorney General Will Lundy, representing the state on appeal, urged the court to affirm. Lundy described the forehead wound and said it required three staples and left a scar that persisted through the trial. "This court has consistently held that a permanent scar is sufficient to establish protracted or obvious disfigurement, which constitutes serious bodily injury," Lundy said, and he added that the victim's ongoing vision difficulties and reported extreme pain also supported the jury's finding.
The factual record described at argument included testimony that the assault occurred in Murfreesboro on Jan. 20, 2020, that the defendant repeatedly assaulted Ms. Pho, confined her in a dog cage until police arrived, and that the victim was treated in an emergency room for several hours. Trial testimony from a treating physician, identified in the record as Dr. Rubino, was cited: the physician testified the victim left the hospital after approximately four hours in stable condition and was prescribed medication. Defense counsel acknowledged the presence of cuts, bruises and abrasions but maintained the permanent scarring and related effects should be a matter for jury determination.
The parties also discussed vision problems the victim reported. Defense counsel said the vision issue persisted for at least a week; Lundy told the court the vision impairment persisted to trial and could constitute a substantial impairment of a bodily organ, which the state argued satisfies the serious-bodily-injury element.
The panel did not issue a ruling at the hearing. The court announced it would take the case under advisement. No formal decision was announced at the conclusion of oral argument.
The matter will return to the court's docket when the panel issues its written opinion. No additional evidentiary hearing or vote was announced during the session recorded in the transcript.
