People v. Conley

Facts

On September 28, 1985, about 200 high school students attended a party where they paid admission to drink unlimited beer. Sean O'Connell and his friends decided to leave after a group of boys approached them. As they walked to their car, a person came out of another group and demanded a can of beer from Sean's friend Marty Carroll. Marty refused. The person struck Sean in the face with a wine bottle. Sean suffered broken upper and lower jaws and four broken facial bones, and he lost a tooth. He needed root canal surgery to reposition 10 damaged teeth. An expert testified that Sean has a permanent condition called mucosal mouth and permanent partial numbness in one lip. The expert also said the life expectancy of the damaged teeth might be diminished by a third or a half. Of five occurrence witnesses, only Marty identified Conley as the attacker. Four defense witnesses said a different person, Robert Frazer, hit Sean. The defense was mistaken identity. The party was held at a residence surrounded by open fields, with no streetlights, and most witnesses had been drinking.

Issues

1. Did the State prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sean O'Connell suffered a permanent disability within the aggravated battery statute, even though no one testified to any task he could no longer perform?
2. Must the State prove that the defendant intended or knew the particular harm the statute names, such as permanent disability, and was the evidence enough to show that intent here?
3. Did the State's use of Conley's pretrial silence, before and after his arrest, and the trial court's handling of the question, deny him due process or a fair trial?

Holding

The State had to prove that Conley had a conscious objective to cause permanent disability, or was consciously aware it was practically certain; the jury could reasonably infer that intent from the bottle, the absence of warning and the force of the blow. Sean's permanent partial lip numbness, mucosal mouth and lost tooth showed a permanent disability. The court found no reversible error in Conley's other claims and affirmed.