State v. Sheikhuna

The State needs only to prove that Defendant was aware of the assaultive nature of his conduct and that his conduct in fact caused the injury. State v. Barnes, 329 Or. 327, 337-38 (1999).

Defendant appealed a conviction for first-degree assault and first-degree criminal mistreatment. Defendant assigned two counts of error to the trial court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant claimed that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he intentionally or knowingly caused his child’s injury, and that the conviction was the result of impermissible speculation. In response, the State argued that expert opinions from two pediatric doctors provided sufficient evidence of the violent nature of the injury and that it was not required to identify the exact mechanism of the injury. The State needs only to prove that Defendant was aware of the assaultive nature of his conduct and that his conduct in fact caused the injury. State v. Barnes, 329 Or. 327, 337-38 (1999). The Court found that the State provided sufficient evidence to allow the factfinder to reasonably infer that Defendant was fully aware of the violent nature of his conduct. The Court reasoned, that although the State could not prove the exact cause of the injury, the type of violent force required to sustain the injuries involved, permitted the factfinder to infer that Defendant knew the conduct was assaultive in nature. Affirmed.