| People v Hodge |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03299 [83 AD3d 594] |
| April 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Reginald Hodge, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Sheryl Feldman of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie G. Wittner, J.), rendered December10, 2009, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencinghim, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 16 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of theevidence (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). The evidence clearly satisfied the element of physical injury(Penal Law § 10.00 [9]) under the standards articulated by the Court of Appeals. Minorinjuries causing moderate pain may suffice (see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007] [fingernailinjury]), as may injuries that did not require any medical treatment (see People v Guidice,83 NY2d 630, 636 [1994]). Here, defendant punched the victim in the face five times, causingher to fall to the ground. As a result of the beating, the victim sustained swelling and bruising tothe right side of her face and bloodied lips, as well as headaches, blurred vision, and pain in thejaw, making chewing difficult, for approximately two to three weeks after the incident. To theextent defendant challenges the credibility of the victim's description of her injuries, we find nobasis for disturbing the jury's credibility determinations. Accordingly, the evidence warrants theconclusion that the victim sustained physical injury (see e.g. People v Bravo, 295 AD2d213, 214 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 556 [2002]; People v Smith, 283 AD2d 208[2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 907 [2001]).
The court's main and supplemental jury instructions regarding physical injury sufficientlyconveyed the applicable standards and did not set an inaccurately low threshold. The courtcorrectly stated that impairment of physical condition does not require incapacitation or seriousand protracted impairment (see People v Tejeda, 165 AD2d 683, 684 [1990], affd78 NY2d 936 [1991]), that substantial pain has to be "more than slight or trivial pain" but neednot be "severe or intense" (see People v Chiddick, 8 NY3d at 447), and that pain from"petty slaps, shoves, [and] kicks" is insufficient (see Matter of Philip A., 49 NY2d 198,200 [1980]). It was within the court's discretion to go beyond the statutory language to reflectjudicial elucidation of that language (see People v Samuels, 99 NY2d 20, 25 [2002]). Tothe extent it quoted from judicial opinions, "the quoted language artfully expresses general and[*2]well-recognized legal principles" (People v Hommel,41 NY2d 427, 429 [1977]), and the court did not invade the jury's province as sole judge of thefacts. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Abdus-Salaam and RomÁn, JJ.