‘Tis just a flesh wound: shard of glass lodged in finger is insufficient evidence of “significant bodily injury”

Reginald K. Teneyck v. United States, No. 12-CF-939 (decided April 2, 2015)

Players: Associates Judges Beckwith & Easterly, Senior Judge Ferren. Opinion by Judge Beckwith. Sydney J. Hoffman for Mr. Teneyck. Trial Judge: Heidi M. Pasichow.

Facts: Mr. Teneyck allegedly smashed the front-passenger window of Paul McDonough’s car in an unsuccessful attempt to rob him. First-responding emergency medical technicians (EMTs) found that Mr. McDonough’s hands had been cut by glass from his car window and were bleeding. The EMTs asked Mr. McDonough if he wanted to go to the hospital, and he said he did. There, a doctor took X-rays and a sonogram to detect any broken glass in Mr. McDonough’s hand and made an incision on his finger to remove one piece of glass. Mr. McDonough did not receive stitches, was not further hospitalized on an in-patient basis, and received pain medication from the doctor, which he used for a “couple of days.”

Issue 1:  Was there insufficient evidence that the shard of glass in Mr. McDonough’s finger satisfied the “significant bodily injury” element of the offense of assault with significant bodily injury?

Holding:  Yes. Significant bodily injury “requires” either “hospitalization or immediate medical attention” to prevent “long-term physical damage” or “severe” pain. Mr. McDonough’s injury did not require “hospitalization,” even though he was treated at a hospital, because hospitalization “requires more than being admitted for outpatient care.” The injury also did not require “immediate medical attention” because no evidence showed that: (1) Mr. McDonough could not have “safely removed [the glass] himself” by using “tweezers or another self-administered remedy” and treated his pain using over-the-counter medication, and (2) Mr. McDonough’s injury, if left untreated, would have caused “long-term” damage or “severe” pain.

Issue 2:  At the sentencing hearing, police testified that Mr. Teneyck had a reputation for committing auto thefts, and a government report showed that auto theft in the area decreased precipitously after Mr. Teneyck’s arrest. Did the trial court’s sentence depend on unreliable hearsay evidence in violation of the Due Process Clause?

Holding:  No. Mr. Teneyck failed to show that the trial court’s sentence depended on the assertedly unreliable evidence. To the contrary, the court “appears to have relied solely upon Mr. Teneyck’s presentence report,” which Mr. Teneyck did not challenge as unreliable.

Read full opinion here.