Background
After an argument with M, the defendant became enraged, damaged property, grabbed M from behind around the neck, and made it difficult for her to breathe. He later cornered M in a bedroom and punched her in the forehead three times, causing a 2.5-centimeter laceration that was closed with three sutures.
A jury convicted Harold B. of second-degree assault, first-degree unlawful restraint, risk of injury to a child, and disorderly conduct. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twelve years of incarceration, suspended after seven years, followed by five years of probation. He challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the assault and unlawful-restraint convictions.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court held that the evidence did not establish the serious physical injury required for completed second-degree assault. Although M had a permanent scar in the center of her forehead, the evidence showed it was small, barely visible, and not the kind of injury that would naturally draw an observer’s eye or substantially detract from her appearance. Under State v. Petion, the scar was a disfigurement but not a serious disfigurement.
The court nevertheless held that the evidence supported findings that the defendant intended to cause serious physical injury and that he intended to restrain M. His rage, choking of M, and repeated punches to her forehead supported the intent finding; his conduct and taunts while holding her by the neck supported first-degree unlawful restraint. Because the jury’s completed-assault verdict necessarily established attempt, the court directed the trial court to enter a conviction for attempted second-degree assault and resentence him. The remaining convictions were affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A permanent facial scar is not automatically a “serious disfigurement” under Connecticut’s assault statutes.
- The seriousness inquiry considers the scar’s size, location, duration, and overall appearance from an objective observer’s perspective.
- When proof fails only as to completion of an offense, a court may direct entry of conviction for a supported attempt offense.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Petion’s boundary between ordinary physical injury and statutorily required serious physical injury. A scar may be permanent and visible yet still be legally insufficient if it does not substantially detract from the victim’s appearance.
It also illustrates that insufficient proof of the completed injury does not necessarily require vacating an assault charge entirely where the verdict establishes the elements of attempted assault.