WRITING MANUAL - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

{ 11} In this case, the state argued that Smith’s injury was
serious within the meaning of R.C. 2901.01(A)(5)(c), which
defines “serious physical harm” as “[a]ny physical harm that
involves acute pain of such duration as to result in substantial
suffering.” The Legislative Service Commission Final Analysis
of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 000, the bill that enacted the current version
of R.C. 2901.01(A)(5), states that pain that is “unbearable or
nearly so, although short-lived,” constitutes “serious physical
harm” under the above definition.
Sets forth legal
principles.
{ 12} Officer Smith testified that although he was treated at
the scene by medics and not transported to the emergency room,
his injury caused him considerable suffering. He testified that the
pain on impact was blinding, that the examination and packing
of his nose by the medic were so “incredibly” painful that he
nearly passed out, that sleeping was difficult for several days
because of the pain, and that he experienced frequent headaches
for two weeks after the blow. He took pain medication several
times daily, missed two days of work, and was assigned to desk
duty for a week.
{ 13} Viewed in the light most favorable to the state, this
evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith
had suffered “serious physical harm” in the form of acute pain
that is “unbearable, or nearly so.” In the context of assault,
courts have held that similarly painful but noncatastrophic
injuries can constitute serious physical harm. See, e.g., State v.
Morretti, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 0000, 2007-Ohio-0000
(facial bruising); State v. Beadle, 000 Ohio App.3d 342, 2008-
Ohio-0000, 888 N.E.2d 40 (4th Dist.) (slash in scalp requiring
six stitches).
{ 14} In arguing that Smith’s injury was not serious, Doe
points out that no emergency-room visit was required and no
major function, such as walking or thinking, was affected. These
facts do not avail Doe. We have found no authority for the
proposition that a victim who is treated outside a hospital or who
retains his ability to walk and think cannot have suffered serious
harm. The relevant definition speaks in terms of pain, not
incapacity or need for complex treatment. See Morretti at 6;
Beadle at 11.
Applies legal
principles to facts,
identifies sources
of principles, and
articulates
rationale.
Explains parties’
arguments.
{ 15} We conclude that Smith’s broken nose constitutes
serious physical harm. Therefore, the court of appeals did not err
in affirming Doe’s conviction of felonious assault.
IV. The State’s Cross-Appeal
{ 16} In its cross-appeal, the state of Ohio asks us to reverse
the appellate court’s holding that the peace-officer specification
set forth in R.C. 2903.11(D)(1)(a) requires a showing that the
Articulates in precise
terms the question
presented by the crossappeal.
The Supreme Court of Ohio 137 Writing Manual