Cited by

(observing that “temporary loss of consciousness, on its own, is substantial bodily harm”).

(declining to decide whether great bodily harm is inflicted if one knocks someone out briefly); (“An individual who assaults another, causing temporary loss of consciousness, has inflicted substantial bodily harm and is guilty of third- degree assault .

“A statute is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.”

-86 (Minn. 1997) (stating evidence of a broken nose and a deep cut requiring stitches was suffi cient to establish an assault with substantial bodily harm); (holding that a temporary loss of consciousness is substantial bodily harm) ; State v. Carlson , -28 (Minn. App. 1985) (holding that evidence of two black eyes, bruises, 6 and scratches was sufficient for a jury to conclude an assault caused substantial bodily harm), r

“A dismissal for lack of probable cause is appealable if it is based on a legal determination such as interpretation of a statute.”

This court has “noted that the word ‘substantial,’ as used in the phrase ‘substantial bodily harm,’ is a term employed in common usage and legal proceedings to mean ‘considerable size or amount.’” n.2 (Minn. App. 2001) (quotation omitted).

Aleman, citing State v. Larkin, argues that unconsciousness only amounts to “substantial bodily harm.” (“[W]e conclude that temporary loss of consciousness, on its own, is substantial bodily harm.”).

(stating that legal determinations, including determinations regarding dismissals for lack of probable cause based on statutory interpretation, are reviewed de novo).

“A dismissal for lack of probable cause is appealable if it is based on a legal determination such as interpretation of 3 a statute.”

ANALYSIS I. “A dismissal for lack of probable cause is appealable if it is based on a legal determination such as the interpretation of a statute.” (citation omitted).