Cited by

He cites State v. Gerald, in which we reversed a first-degree-assault conviction because a victim’s half-inch-long scars in, and behind, his ear did not meet the definition for “serious permanent disfigurement.”

While a collapsed lung generally could cause someone to die, this court has stated that “[u]nder the plain language of the statute, the injury itself must be life-threatening.”

See, - 02 (Minn. 1992) (concluding that a physician’s testimony that a cut in the victim’s ear was close to a major artery and could have caused the victim to bleed to death, but that the victim ultimately did not suffer that injury, did not show great bodily harm because “[t]he fact that a lesser injury is located

The first part of the definition—“bodily injury which creates a high probability of death” —is satisfied by the surgeon’s testimony that J.B.’s injuries were “life-threatening.” (reasoning that evidence of “life- threatening” injury is sufficient to prove “high probability of death”).

We address each form of great bodily harm in turn.1 High Probability of Death When determining whether a victim suffered great bodily harm, we must “focus on the injury to the victim rather than the actions of the assailant.”

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.

First, Maroko contends that such a in which the victim, who was stabbed in the neck, had “a tightening or sensation” when he yawned or chewed.

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

d 799 (Minn. App. 1992), the victim suffered knife cuts on the back of his neck and his ear.

When determining whether the victim suffered great bodily harm, a court must “focus on the injury to the victim rather than the actions of the assailant.” d 799, 802 (Minn. App. 1992).

The state emphasizes that a bullet that enters the torso where it did on E.G. can hit critical body parts, such as the lungs, heart, kidneys, aorta, or spine, and that other patients have died from gunshot wounds in the same area as E.G.’s. The state’s d 799, 802 (Minn. App. 1992) (holding that fact that cut was located close to major vein or artery and could have been more serious not sufficient to satisfy statutory requirement of “high probability of death”).

803 *556 (Minn.App.1992).

These injuries constitute “serious permanent disfigurement” under the definition of “great bodily harm.” To support his insufficiency of the evidence argument

(two small cuts on neck and ear were not “other serious bodily- injury” under Minn. Stat. § 609.02 , subd.