Arzaga v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “[t]he existence of a cut, bruise, or scrape on the body is sufficient evidence of physical pain necessary to establish ‘bodily injury’ within the meaning of the statute”
• stating that such evidence is inadmissible because it imper-missibly decides an issue for the jury
• jury permitted to draw inferences from evidence, including inference that victim actually felt or suttered physical pain
• even without testimony from complainant that she suffered pain from being struck, jury was permitted to draw reasonable inference that she was injured from being hit in face by husband
• jury’s verdict finding defendant guilty of assault was supported by substantial evidence, despite victim’s failure to testify at trial, where officers at the scene testified regarding statements made by the victim, and State introduced photographs of victim’s injuries

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).