Stephon Brown v. United States (decided September 1, 2016).
Players: Associate Judges Thompson and
Beckwith, Senior Judge King. Opinion by Thompson. Sicilia Englert for Mr.
Brown. Trial judge: Todd E. Edelman
Facts: On December 15, 2014, while he was
attempting to make a food delivery for a restaurant, two men attacked Gregory
Dowell by repeatedly punching and kicking him in the head and body. They then
took his phone, wallet, and vest, and one man rode away on Mr. Dowell’s
bicycle. After Mr. Dowell reported the incident, police ran a check to
determine if anyone’s GPS monitoring device was in the area at the time of the
incident. Through that check, police learned that Stephon Brown had been in the
area. Police then went to his house, where they located Mr. Dowell’s bicycle.
Due to the attack, Mr. Dowell
experienced headaches but declined to go to the hospital despite being urged to
go by both the paramedics who responded to the scene and a friend, who was a
nurse. Mr. Dowell did not want to go because he did not have insurance. But
five days later, when he was still experiencing pain, he went and was diagnosed
with a concussion and underwent a CAT scan.
The jury convicted Mr.
Brown of robbery and assault with significant bodily injury.
Issue
1: Was the evidence sufficient to establish Mr.
Brown committed the robbery?
Holding: Yes. Mr. Brown admitted there was
evidence to place him in the area of the robbery close to the time it occurred
and he admitted that the stolen bicycle was found at his house only a few hours
after the robbery, but claimed he found an abandoned bike and rode it home. The
court ruled there was sufficient evidence to connect him to the robbery. Mr. Dowell
testified that two men walked past him around 8:50 pm on North Capitol Street,
SE, between T Street and Seaton Place. The two men then returned, attacked him,
and fled north on North Capitol before making a right turn.
Mr. Brown’s main
contention was that the GPS data was inconsistent with the complainant’s testimony.
The court disagreed. One, the complainant testified he did not see anyone else
in the area at the time. Two, though the tracking data showed that he moved
farther south down North Capitol than the complainant had said, “the
[complainant’s] testimony did not eliminate the possibility that the attackers
did precisely that while [the complainant] was distracted” trying to make the
food delivery. And three, testimony established that the GPS monitoring data
generally are accurate within a fifty-foot radius of each point plotted on a
map, allowing the jury to conclude that Mr. Brown was even closer to the
location of the assault than the plotted points indicated. Those facts, plus
the bike being found at his house shortly after the robbery, established
sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict for robbery.
Issue
2: Was the evidence
sufficient to establish that Dowell suffered significant bodily injury?
Holding: Yes. To prove significant bodily
injury there must be an injury “that requires hospitalization or immediate
medical attention.” The complainant sustained “a lot of rapid blows” to the
head, and suffered a laceration on his forehead and ears, and multiple bright
red areas on his scalp, neck, and ears. He testified that afterwards, he felt
“loopy” and “dazed,” that his head hurt, and that the pain lasted for several
days. He finally went to the hospital after several days, even though he did
not have insurance, because a friend offered to pay for his medical expenses.
At the hospital, he described his pain as “unacceptable” and a “constant
headache.” He was diagnosed with a concussion. The treating doctor testified
that it is “important for people with concussions to seek medical treatment”
and that doctors “want anyone who has a head injury to come in and be
evaluated[.]” Also, the doctor testified she ordered a CAT scan, which is the
typical test for anyone complaining of a head injury. The doctor admitted,
however, that some people who do not follow the recommended course of treatment
for a concussion “may do okay on their own.”
Referring to this case
as “perhaps a closer one than we have seen in some previous cases,” the Court
nonetheless concluded the evidence was sufficient to establish significant
bodily injury. The Court cited the number of blows to the head, the amount of
pain in the moment, the amount of lingering pain, and the recommendations that
Mr. Dowell seek medical treatment immediately. Further, when he did go to the
hospital, he did not receive a “mere diagnosis,” but underwent treatment,
including a CAT scan and was prescribed limitations on his activities to avoid
worsening his symptoms. Lastly, the Court noted that the doctor testifying
someone might have “do[ne] okay” on his own” does not undermine the seriousness
of the injury when it is one that otherwise would typically require “immediate
medical attention” by a professional with “true medical expertise.” BM
No comments:
Post a Comment