State v. Miller

When there is no direct evidence of substantial pain, the trial court must decide whether the evidence would allow a rational jury to reasonably conclude that the victim experienced considerable pain and whether the duration of such pain was more than short-lived. State v. Guzman, 276 Or App 208, 215, 366 P3d 816 (2016).

Defendant appealed a conviction for two counts of fourth-degree assault and assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal. On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence presented did not suffice to prove the element of "substantial pain" because the victim could not remember whether she felt pain. In response, the State argued that a rational fact-finder could reasonably infer from the evidence that Defendant's assault caused the victim considerable pain. When there is no direct evidence of substantial pain, the trial court must decide whether the evidence would allow a rational jury to reasonably conclude that the victim experienced considerable pain and whether the duration of such pain was more than short-lived. State v. Guzman, 276 Or App 208, 215, 366 P3d 816 (2016).  The court held that the State had met its burden of proof through the use of photographs that depicted injuries sustained by the victim, as well as testimony that the victim had previously stated that Defendant had punched her. The court reasoned that a reasonable fact-finder could infer from the evidence that the victim had endured substantial pain. Affirmed.