In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. M., Jr., Child.

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-1837

In the Matter of the Welfare of: T. M., Jr., Child.

Filed May 21, 2018
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Blue Earth County District Court
File No. 07-JV-17-567

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, Leslie J. Rosenberg, Assistant
Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota (for appellant)

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Patrick R. McDermott, Blue Earth County Attorney, Susan B. DeVos, Assistant County
Attorney, Mankato, Minnesota (for respondent

Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Stauber,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
BJORKMAN, Judge
Appellant juvenile challenges his delinquency adjudication for misdemeanor
domestic assault, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he caused bodily
harm when he slapped his mother in the face. We affirm.

 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
FACTS
Appellant T.M., Jr., then 15 years old, called police to report that his mother had
locked him in an unheated garage in December 2016. Police responded and spoke with
T.M., Jr. and his mother, B.B., who both described an argument that they had in the car
that day that led to a physical altercation. B.B. accused T.M., Jr. of “hit[ting] her on the
left side of her face,” which loosened her glasses. In a squad car recording and according
to the testimony of the officer who was with T.M., Jr. in the squad ca r, T.M., Jr. admitted
that he struck his mother by slapping her with an open hand after she struck him first. The
state filed a juvenile delinquency petition charging T.M., Jr. with misdemeanor domestic
assault.
The case was tried to the court. Throughout her testimony, B.B. retreated from her
statements to law enforcement and downplayed the incident. The district court found that
T.M., Jr. “admitted that he had slapped his mother,” that he did so with intent to cause her
bodily harm, and that he did n ot act in self-defense. While noting that neither party “was
injured by the other’s activity in the common sense of the word,” the court concluded that
T.M., Jr.’s act amounted to assault. T.M., Jr. appeals.
D E C I S I O N
T.M., Jr. argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of guilt for
misdemeanor assault. We apply the same standard of review in an appeal from a bench
trial that we apply in jury trials, State v. Burnett, 867 N.W.2d 534, 537 (Minn. App. 2015),
review denied (Minn. Oct. 20, 2015) , and therefore “view the evidence in a light most
favorable to the [adjudication of guilt] to determine whether the facts in the record and the
legitimate inferences drawn from them would permit the [fact -finder] to reasonably

3
conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense of which
he was convicted.” State v. Hanson , 800 N.W.2d 618, 621 (Minn. 2011) (quotation s
omitted). We will not reverse if the fact-finder, “acting with due regard for the presumption
of innocence and f or the necessity of overcoming it by proof beyond a reasonable doubt,
could reasonably conclude that [a] defendant was proven guilty of the offense charged.”
Id. (alteration in original) (quotation omitted).
A person commits m isdemeanor assault by “intentionally inflict[ing] or
attempt[ing] to inflict bodily harm upon” “a family or household member.” Minn. Stat.
§ 609.2242, subd. 1(2) (2016); see Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 10(2) (201 6) (generally
defining “assault” as “the intentional infliction of or a ttempt to inflict bodily harm upon
another”). “Bodily harm” is defined as “physical pain or injury, illness, or any impairment
of physical condition.” Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 7 (2016).
T.M., Jr.’s sole assertion on appeal is that the evidence is not sufficient to prove that
he committed an assault because B.B. did not sustain bodily injury . He specifically notes
the district court’s finding that “[t]here is no indication that either of the parties was injured
by the other’s activity in the common s ense of the word.” We need not address this
argument because the district court found that T.M., Jr. “struck his [m]other with that act
intending to cause bodily harm.” T.M., Jr. does not challenge this finding , and the record
evidence supports it. Because attempting to cause bodily harm falls within the scope of
the misdemeanor assault offense, the state was not required to prove B.B. actually sustained
bodily injury. Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.