Cited by

alternative definitions.” (quotation omitted).

First, a statement is testimonial if its primary purpose “is to ‘establish or prove past events’ for purposes of later criminal prosecution.” (quoting Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822 (2006)).

-22 (Minn. App. 2015) (concluding that a gunshot wound to the lower back was not life-threatening because a CT scan revealed that the bullet traveled in a straight line without hitting any critical body parts even though a paramedic and doctor testified that based on the location of the injury they treated it

8 (2004)); (applying Moore and concluding that evidence was insufficient to prove great bodily harm).

The surgeon explained that the puncture to J.B.’s lung “can cause serious injury or death” because “air collapses the lung to the point that it can’t expand” or “it starts to cause the heart itself not to be able to fill every time it beats.” in which medical professionals initially treated the victim’s injuries as if they were life-threatening but later determined the path of a bullet and learned that it did not hit any major organs.

d 916, 925 (Minn. App. 2015).

There is no statutory definition of “other serious bodily harm ,” but this court has said, “it should be taken in the context of the other three alternative definitions.” (quotation omitted).

When determin ing whether the victim suffered great bodily harm, a court must “focus on the injury to the victim rather than the actions of the assailant,” and mu st consider the totality of the victim’s injuries

See State v. Dye , (conclud ing that the victim’s statements to officers were nontestimonial, in part, because the victim was “in shock, crying, panicky, and appeared to be in significant pain”).

“‘Other serious bodily harm’ is not defined by th e statute, and it should be taken in context of the other three alternative definitions.” (quotation omitted).

Similarly, a bullet passed through the victim’s body without harmi ng any internal organs.

Under State v. Dye, we must “focus on the injury to the victim rather than the actions of the assailant.”