People v. Greene, 70 N.Y.2d 860 (1987)

“Physical injury,” as an element of assault and robbery, requires proof of ‘impairment of physical condition or substantial pain,’ and the determination of whether that threshold is met is typically a question of fact for the jury.

Summary

These consolidated cases, People v. Greene and People v. Bogan, address the evidentiary threshold for establishing “physical injury” as defined in Penal Law § 10.00(9). The Court of Appeals held that the evidence presented in both cases was sufficient for a jury to find that the victims sustained physical injuries. The Greene case involved cuts, kicks, and significant pain, while the Bogan case involved choking, temporary loss of consciousness, and difficulty swallowing. The court emphasized that the determination of whether the injuries meet the statutory definition is generally a factual question for the jury.

Facts

In People v. Greene, the defendant tripped the victim, sat on him, kicked him in the ribs, and cut him with a knife. The victim testified to experiencing “terrible pains” and “a lot” of pain. He bled “all over” and required bandages for three weeks, resulting in permanent spots from the cuts.

In People v. Bogan, the defendant grabbed the victim around the neck, pushed him to the floor, and choked him, causing him to stop breathing momentarily and lose consciousness temporarily. The victim was hospitalized, diagnosed with contusions, given medication, and suffered pain and difficulty swallowing for two days.

Procedural History

In People v. Greene, the defendant appealed an order affirming his conviction for second-degree assault. In People v. Bogan, the People appealed an order modifying the defendant’s conviction, reducing it from second-degree robbery to third-degree robbery. The Court of Appeals addressed both cases in a single decision.

Issue(s)

Whether the People presented sufficient evidence in each case to prove that the victim suffered “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00(9), defined as “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain”.

Holding

Yes, in both cases, because there was sufficient evidence for the jury to have found that the injuries received by the victim constituted “physical injury” within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9).

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals applied the statutory definition of “physical injury” found in Penal Law § 10.00(9), which requires either “impairment of physical condition or substantial pain.” In Greene, the court highlighted the victim’s testimony of “terrible pains,” the severity of the bleeding, the need for bandages over three weeks, and the permanent marks from the cuts. In Bogan, the court pointed to the choking, temporary loss of consciousness, hospitalization for contusions, medication, and the victim’s pain and difficulty swallowing. The court cited People v. Rojas, 61 N.Y.2d 726, 727; People v. Jimenez, 55 N.Y.2d 895, 896; and Matter of Philip A., 49 N.Y.2d 198, 200, indicating consistency with prior holdings on the issue of physical injury. The court implicitly recognized that the determination of “substantial pain” is a subjective assessment, but the objective evidence of the injuries sustained corroborated the victims’ claims. The court did not explicitly discuss policy considerations, but the decision underscores the importance of allowing juries to determine factual questions related to the severity of injuries in assault and robbery cases. The court’s memorandum opinion provided a concise application of existing law to the specific facts of the two cases.