State of Minnesota, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A23-0409

State of Minnesota,
Respondent,

vs.

Jonquil Bernard Neal,
Appellant.

Filed March 4, 2024
Affirmed
Florey, Judge *

Ramsey County District Court
File No. 62-CR-22-3727

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

John J. Choi, Ramsey County Attorney, Peter R. Marker, Assistant County Attorney, St.
Paul, Minnesota (for respondent)

Cathryn Middlebrook, Chief Appellate Public Defender, St. Paul, Minnesota; and

Peter Dahlquist, Assistant Public Defender, Edina , Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Larson, Judge; and Florey,
Judge.

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
FLOREY, Judge
In this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence for first -degree
assault, appellant argues the conviction should be reversed because the re was insufficient
evidence of great bodily harm . We affirm.
FACTS
According to the complaint, on the night of July 3, 2022, officers from the St. Paul
Police Department (SPPD) responded to a report of a wom an lying in the backyard of a
residence on Van Buren Avenue. The woman was reportedly bloody and unconscious after
being assaulted by her boyfriend.1 The 911 caller told the dispatcher, “This gal got the sh-
t kick[ed] outta her by her boyfriend, obviously.”
Officers found the victim lying “down on the ground ” with her face covered in
blood. The victim told officers that appellant Jonquil Bernard Neal had assaulted her for
thirty minutes, striking her body and head with his hands. After fearing for her life, the
victim brandished a firearm and shot appellant once in the leg. The victim reported that
appellant took the gun from her and then hit her in the head with it several times. The victim
also told officers that appellant tried to fire the gun at her, but the gun “did not go off.”
Appellant then took the victim’s car keys and drove away with her vehicle , which law
enforcement later found in North Minneapolis.

1 The victim later told medical staff in the emergency room that appellant was her husband
and that they were living together at the time of the incident.
3
SPPD eventually learned that appellant was at North Memorial Hospital receiving
treatment for a gunshot wound to the leg. Officers arrested appellant once he was
discharged from the hospital . Law enforcement obtained a search warrant and recovered
the victim’s gun from inside her residence, near “a spent casing and a live round.” Officers
observed that the trigger guard on the gun was broken. The victim told police that the
trigger guard was not broken before appellant assaulted her .
Respondent State of Minnesota charged appellant with first -degree assault in
violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.221, subd. 1 ( Supp. 2021); felony domestic
assault, in violation of Minnesota Statut es section 609.2242, subd. 4 (2020); and violation
of a no-contact order, under Minnesota Statutes section 629.75, subd. 2(d)(1) ( 2020).
The complaint was later amended to charge appellant with first-degree assault, in
violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.221, subd. 1; ineligible person in possession of
a firearm, in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 624.713, subd. 1(2) ( 2020); second-
degree assault—dangerous weapon, in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.222,
subd. 1 (2020); and violation of a no- contact orde r under Minnesota Statutes section
629.75, subd. 2(d)(1).
The case proceeded to a jury trial in October 2022. The victim did not testify. The
state presented a recording of the 911 call. The district court also allowed the jury to view
body-camera footage of SPPD officers responding to the incident .
In the body- camera footage, the victim can be heard pleading for help as officers
search for her in the darkness. The first thing the victim tells the officer(s) is that appellant
beat her up and knocked her teeth out. An officer encourages the victim to continue talking
4
to him. The victim then reports that appellant hit her with his bare hands for thirty minutes.
Then he hit her with “the gun” after she shot him with it, and also hit her with a vodka
bottle. She also tells officers that appellant “dragged [her] to the room,” but she “climbed
out” (into the neighboring yard) , and that appellant tried to kill her. The victim states that
appellant hit and choked her and pulled her hair. The officer testified that he told the victim
to “keep talking to [him]” because he was concerned that she might lose consciousness.
The jury was shown photos of the victim taken when she was put on the stretcher and when
she was inside th e ambulance.
Another officer testified about photos he took inside the victim’s residence. He
described seeing “blood smeared everywhere,” “a gun sitting out in the open [,] . . . a bullet
on the floor and then a bullet casing and then some magazines[.]” The photos show the
victim’s home in disarray; a firearm covered in blood; and blood smeared on the floors and
various items of clothing/fabric.
A sergeant investigator testified that he spoke with the victim at Regions Hospital
in the morning on July 4. He observed that the victim appeared to be in a lot of pain with
lacerations on her face and head and injuries all over her body. The victim’s wounds were
stitched and there was a metal bar placed across the front of her teeth. Medical staff told
the investigator that the metal bar was placed on the victim’s teeth to keep them from falling
out.
The state displayed photos of the victim taken by the investigator while the victim
was in the emergency room . The photos show bruising on the victim ’s arms, shoulders,
and chest, as well as broken blood vessels in her left eye. The investigator told the jury that
5
he could not “say for sure” but “[t]he bruising below the eye and the U -shaped laceration
on the side of the face ” appeared to be consistent with “the butt of a gun in shape.”
A doctor from Regions Hospital testified that the victim presented to the emergency
room on July 3 with “[p]rimarily left -sided pain, as well as facial pain.” The victim told
the doctor she was assaulted by her husband. The doctor observed that the victim had facial
swelling and scalp lacerations, as well as “bruising over her face and upper chest.” After
doctors treated the victim with pain medication, the victim complained of facial and mouth
pain. Upon examination the doctor d etermined that the victim “had cracked front teeth
essentially.” The doctor explained that the victim’s front teeth were “cracked kind of
horizontally.” The doctor testified that typical treatment in the emergency room for thi s
type of injury entails placing a splint on the teeth to keep them steady. The doctor also
stated that teeth “take some more time to heal compared to our [other] bones.”
A computed tomography ( CT) scan of the victim’s head revealed “swelling of the
scalp with no obvious bleed” and a facial CT revealed “a minimally displaced fracture of
the right nasal arch[.]” Additionally, a chest X-ray showed that one of the victim’s ribs was
fractured. The doctor described the rib fracture as “kind of a break in the bone without
significant malalignment,” which is painful.
A physician’s assistant (PA) from the emergency department at Regions Hospital
testified that she repaired a laceration on the victim’s cheek with stitches. The laceration
was two and one-half centimeters, “large and gaping,” and required nine stitches. A three -
centimeter laceration on the victim’s scalp required seven stitches. The victim also had two
“superficial” lacerations below her left eye. The PA explained that the victim’s teeth “were
6
fractured horizontally or across in half, so much so that when [ she] pushed on the bottom
part of the teeth, they sort of folded into the mouth, so they were not stable.” The PA
stabilized the victim’s teeth with Dermabond glue and a metal bracket. The PA described
the treatment as a “ temporary repair,” as the victim’s teeth were “fractured through the
pulp and the dentin[.]” The pulp is the “inside of the teeth where you have nerves and
nutrients and blood vessels.” The dentin is “[t]he covering between enamel.” The PA stated
that the victim would need to follow up with a dentist to repair the teeth permanently.
The victim remained in the hospital ’s care for about eight hours before being
discharged to the Tubma n women’s shelter on July 4. A second doctor from Regions
Hospital testified about his examination of the victim when she returned to the emergency
room later in the day on July 4. The second doctor reported that the victim told him she
went to the women’s shelter after she was discharged, but “wasn’t able to ambulate safely.
The women’s shelter did not think she should stay.” The victim complained of significant
pain in her extremities, arms , legs, and chest. After performing an “ambulation trial,” the
doctor determined the victim could not walk and “needed to be admitted to the hospital.”
Appellant did not testify. After deliberating, the jury returned guilty verdicts on all
four counts charged against appellant. The district court sentenced appellant to 161 months
in prison for the first -degree assault conviction, and 60 months for the ineligible -perso n-
in-possession-of-a-firearm conviction.
This appeal followed.

7
DECISION
Appellant argues the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to convict him of
first-degree assault because there was no evidence of (1) a high probability of death,
(2) serious permanent disfigurement, (3) permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the
function of a bodily member or organ, or (4) other serious bod ily harm. We disagree and
conclude that the evidence was sufficient to find that appellant inflicted serious permanent
disfigurement and other serious bodily harm.
“When evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, appellate courts carefully
examine the record to determine whether the facts and the legitimate inferences drawn from
them would permit the jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt of the offense of which he was convicted.” State v. Griffin, 887 N.W.2d
257, 263 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted). The reviewing court considers the evidence in
the light most favorable to the verdict. Id. “Because the meaning of a criminal statute is
intertwined with the issue of whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the
defendant violated the statute, it is often necessary to interpret a criminal statute when
evaluating an insufficiency-of-the-evidence claim.” State v. Vasko, 889 N.W.2d 551, 556
(Minn. 2017). Issues of statutory interpretation are subject to de novo review. Id.
A person who assaults another and inflicts great bodily harm is guilty of first-degree
assault. Minn. Stat. § 609.221, subd. 1. Great bodily harm is bodily injury that creates: (1) a
high probability of death, (2) serious permanent di sfigurement, (3) a permanent or
protracted loss or impairment of any bodily member or organ, or (4) other serious bodily
harm. Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 8 (2020). “The question of whether a particular injury
8
constitutes great bodily harm is a question for the jury.” State v. Moore, 699 N.W.2d 733,
737 (Minn. 2005).
Serious permanent disfigurement
Not all disfiguring injuries are life -threatening. State v. Currie , 400 N.W.2d 361,
366 (Minn. App. 1987) , rev. denied (Minn. April 17, 1987). Permanent scarring that is
highly visible can constitute serious permanent disfigurement. See State v. Anderson, 370
N.W.2d 703, 706 (Minn. App. 1985) (concluding that a long scar running the length of the
victim’s upper body, which was still present two and one half years after the injury was
inflicted, constituted serious permanent disfigurement), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 19, 1985);
see also State v. McDaniel, 534 N.W.2d 290, 293 (Minn. App. 1995) (concluding that the
victim’s injuries caused serious permanent disfigurement because the victim had an almost
one-inch-long permanent raised scar on his chest, and a “highly visible” six- centimeter
permanent raised scar on the front of his neck), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 20, 1995).
Although the victim’s teeth were not completely knocked out, the evidence
nevertheless is sufficient to support a finding of serious permanent disfigurement. The PA
testified that the victim’s teeth “were fractured horizontally or across in hal f, so much so
that when [she] pushed on the bottom part of the teeth, they sort of folded into the mouth,
so they were not stable.” Emergency room staff temporarily stabilized the victim’s teeth
with Dermabond glue and a metal bracket. But the victim’s teeth were fractured down to
the nerve and needed to be repaired permanently by a dentist. And one of the victim’s
treating physicians testified that teeth “take some more time to heal compared to our [other]
bones.”
9
The injuries to the victim’s face and tee th were also highly visible. The victim had
a two and one-half centimeter “gaping” laceration on her cheek that required nine stitches;
and a three -centimeter laceration on her scalp that required seven stitches. She also had
superficial lacerations below her left eye. Although the victim did not testify at trial and
the state did not present evidence of permanent scarring, given how pronounced and visible
the victim’s injuries are in the photos, it was not unreasonable for the jury to conclude that
she was permanently disfigured. Furthermore, in a nonprecedential opinion, which we find
persuasive though not binding, this court concluded that it was reasonable for the district
court to find that a broken tooth constituted serious permanent disfigurement, even though
the victim later had it repaired. State v. Aleman, No. A15- 1453, 2016 WL 4723340, *4
(Minn. App. Sept. 12, 2016), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 23, 2016).
Thus, the evidence was sufficient to establish serious permanent disfigurement.
Other serious bodily harm
Based on the totality of the evidence presented to the jury—photographs of the
victim’s injuries, the officer’s body- camera footage, testimony from SPPD officers, and
medical testimony related to the severity and treatment of the victim’s injuries —the
evidence was sufficient for the jury to reasonably conclude that appellant inflicted other
serious bodily harm.
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.” State v.
Dye, 871 N.W.2d 916, 922 (Minn. App. 2015) (quotation omitted). When determining
whether injuries constitute other serious bodily harm, we must consider the totality of the
10
victim’s injuries. Id. In Anderson, this court concluded that the victim’s injuries, “taken as
a whole, constitute[d] ‘ other serious bodily harm.’ ” 370 N.W.2d at 706. The victim
suffered “a lacerated liver, a laceration on h er head which required stitches, bruises, other
head injuries which caused lapses of consciousness, and a long scar running the length of
her upper body.” Id. The treating physician testified that the liver laceration was a “life -
threatening” injury. Id. And the victim remained in the hospital for a week. Id. at 705.
But, in Dye, the victim was shot through the abdomen, and the court determined the
evidence was insufficient to sustain the first -degree assault conviction because: (1) the
bullet “did not hit any critical body parts ”; (2) the victim walked to the ambulance when
emergency responders arrived; (3) the bullet was removed after a “small incision”; and
(4) although she was hospitalized, she was released the next day. 871 N.W.2d at 922.
Without testimony from the victim about “the extent of her pain and whether she ha[d] any
permanent scarring,” the court concluded the evidence did not support a finding that the
victim suffered “other serious bodily injury within the meaning of the statute.” Id . And in
State v. Gerald, 486 N.W.2d 799, 802 (Minn. App. 1992), this court held that “two
relatively small cuts” —one inside the victim’s ear, and one behind the victim’s ear —did
not amount to “other serious bodily harm.” We also relied on the victim’s testimony that
he chased the assailant in his cab after being injured. Id.
Here, however, the victim did not chase her assailant, nor did she walk to the
ambulance after appellant brutally assaulted her. SPPD officers located the victim lying on
the ground , in the dark, with her face covered in blood. One of the responding officers
testified that he told the victim to “keep talking to [him]” because he was concerned that
11
the victim might lose consciousness. The victim told officers that appellant hit her multiple
times in the head with her gun. And the sergeant investigator later testified that the bruising
below the victim’s eye and laceration on the side of her face were consistent with the shape
of the butt of a gun.
The victim was placed on a stretcher and taken by ambulance to the hospital where
emergency room staff stitched the gaping laceration on her cheek and the laceration on her
scalp. A facial CT revealed that the victim’s nose was fractured, and X-rays showed the
victim’s rib was also fractured. Moreover, after she was treated and discharged, the victim
returned to the emergency room later in the day with significant pain and was admitted to
the hospital because she could not walk.
Based on a totality of the evidence presented to the jury about the victim’s injuries—
fractured teeth, cheek and scalp lacerations , lacerations and bruising below the victim’s
eye, fractured nose, fracture d rib, bruising on the victim ’s arms, shoulders, and chest, as
well as broken blood vessels in the victim’s left eye, and the victim’s admittance to the
hospital after being unable to walk the next day —there was sufficient evidence for a jury
to reasonably conclude that appellant caused the victim other serious bodily harm.
Thus, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to sustain appellant’s first-degree
assault conviction.
Affirmed.