AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the Defendant, Kendrick Joey, Sr., who was convicted of aggravated battery (great bodily harm) against a fellow inmate, referred to as Victim. The incident, captured on video, showed the Defendant engaging in a fight with the Victim, during which the Defendant placed the Victim in a headlock until the Victim passed out. The Defendant then punched the Victim in the face approximately 33 times while the Victim was unconscious, and upon the Victim's awakening, kicked and elbowed him 9 times. The Victim was hospitalized, treated for multiple fractures to his face, and blood in his brain, resulting in impaired vision. The Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the great bodily harm caused.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove great bodily harm, particularly noting the absence of testimony from a medical professional or expert about the nature of the injury (para 5).
• Appellee: The State needed to prove that the Defendant intentionally hit the Victim with the intent to injure, causing great bodily harm, defined as an injury with a high probability of death or resulting in serious disfigurement or impairment (paras 2-3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction of aggravated battery (great bodily harm) against the Defendant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for aggravated battery (great bodily harm).

Reasons

• The panel, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, Kristina Bogardus, and Megan P. Duffy, unanimously concurred in the decision. The Court applied a two-step process for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and determining whether a rational trier of fact could find each element of the crime established beyond a reasonable doubt (para 2). The Court found that the video evidence of the Defendant's actions and the Victim's testimony about his injuries were sufficient for a jury to conclude that great bodily harm occurred. It was noted that expert testimony was not required to prove great bodily harm and that the jury could reasonably find causation between the Defendant's actions and the Victim's injuries (paras 4-5).