Case Briefing Assignment

State v. Kuperus

Court of Appeals of Oregon

2011 Ore. App. Lexis 396 (2011)

Facts:

The defendant, Scott Russell Kuperus, II, and the victim were engaged in a physical altercation when the defendant bit off a segment of the victim’s ear. There is a noticeable scar where the missing part of the ear should be and the victim needs to wear a prosthetic device.

The defendant was charged with first-degree assault and second-degree assault. Defendant requested that he be acquitted on both charges. Defendant disputed that teeth are not a dangerous weapon which is a required component of first-degree assault. He also argued that there was not enough evidence to prove second-degree assault because the victim did not endure a serious physical injury. The trail court denied his request and found the defendant guilty on both charges. The defendant appealed the trial court’s ruling renewing his arguments.

The Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the first-degree conviction and upheld the second-degree assault conviction. The court sent the case back to the trial court for resentencing.

Issue:

1. Can teeth be considered a dangerous weapon?

2. Were the requirements of a serious physical injury met?

Decision:

1. No. The Oregon Court of Appeals found that defendant’s own teeth are not a dangerous weapon and that the trial court made a mistake in rejecting defendant’s request to drop the first-degree assault charge.

2. Yes. The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state arguing that there was enough evidence to show that the victim suffered a serious physical injury.

Reason:

The Oregon Court of Appeals first concentrated on the defendant’s dispute to his first-degree assault conviction. They originally looked at the wording and framework of the law. Under state law, first-degree assault is committed when a person intentionally uses a dangerous weapon to cause a serious physical injury. State law defines a dangerous weapon as any weapon used capable of causing serious physical injury. In order to prove first-degree assault by way of a dangerous weapon, the state needs to establish that the defendant’s teeth are a weapon capable of causing serious physical injury. The trial court determined that teeth are a dangerous weapon but failed to state whether teeth are indeed a weapon. Since the trial court failed to specify whether teeth are a weapon, the court usually presumes that the trial court intended terms to have their plain meaning which in this case suggests that a weapon is something outside the human body and would not include the defendant’s own teeth. Under a previous decision of the Supreme Court of Oregon, the court held that a weapon is something with which a person is armed and fortified. Based on this decision, the Oregon Court of Appeals determined that a defendant cannot arm himself with his own body, including his teeth, removing it from being considered a dangerous weapon for purposes of first-degree assault. The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that teeth cannot be considered a dangerous weapon for the purpose of establishing a basis for first-degree assault conviction of defendant.

The Oregon Court of Appeals turned to the defendant’s request for the second-degree assault charges to be dropped because there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the victim suffered a serious physical injury. According to state law, to be convicted of second-degree assault requires the defendant to have intentionally caused serious physical injury to someone else. Under state law, serious physical injury includes physical injury which causes serious and prolonged disfigurement. The lower portion of the victim’s ear is noticeably missing and there is a visible scar. The victim needs to wear a prosthetic device. Based on the facts, there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that the victim suffered a serious and protracted disfigurement and, thus, a serious physical injury. The Oregon Court of Appeals agreed with the state arguing that the trial court reasonably found that the victim suffered a serious and protracted disfigurement presenting sufficient evidence that the victim suffered a serious physical injury exists.