☢ test - Í

there is some evidence in this case supporting an inference that the victim’s first wound was non-fatal, as she managed to flee a short distance into her neighbor’s yard before succumbing to the gunfire.” Parnell v. State, 280 Ga.App. 665, 634 S.E.2d 763 (May 30, 2006). Evidence was sufficient to establish ‘serious disfigurement’ in defendant’s prosecution for aggravated battery: “[Victim] Schneider testified that, because of the stabbing, he was hospitalized for three days. His treating physician testified that the stabbing had violated Schneider’s skin and fatty tissue and exposed his sternum, but had not gone through significant intrathoracic organs. However, the presence of air directly underlying the breast bone, where no air should have been, indicated to the doctor that the tip of the knife had penetrated the sternum or had slipped to the side of the sternum and then punctured the tissues immediately underneath the sternum. Pictures of Schneider’s wound taken on the night of the incident were shown to the jury. Schneider displayed to the jury the scar left by the wound. He further testified that for a month after the incident, he suffered intermittent shortness of breath and heavy chest pain; and that for about eight months, he was unable to work his job as a machine operator cutting metal. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence authorizing the jury to find the element of serious disfigurement. [Cits.]” Distinguishing Williams v. State , 248 Ga.App. 316, 319, 546 S.E.2d 74 (2001): “where state adduced no evidence from which the jury could infer that the victim’s injuries were more significant, grave, or severe than the superficial, visible wounds that would typically support a battery conviction under OCGA § 16-5-23.1, the state failed to carry its burden of proving the ‘seriously disfiguring’ element of aggravated battery.” “‘ Because the circumstances of each aggravated battery vary, whether disfigurement is serious is best resolved by the factfinder on a case-by-base basis,’” quoting Williams at 318(1) “And there is no requirement that the disfigurement be permanent . Id. ” See also Ferrell (February 6, 2007), above. Accord, Underwood v. State , 283 Ga.App. 638, 642 S.E.2d 324 (February 20, 2007) (broken nose was sufficient disfigurement). Parham v. State, 270 Ga.App. 54, 606 S.E.2d 79 (October 12, 2004). Defendant could be convicted of aggravated battery – “bodily harm to another by rendering a member of the victim’s body useless” – where she shot victim in the buttocks, rendering her rectum and a portion of her colon useless for a time and requiring temporary colostomy. Silvers v. State, 245 Ga.App. 486, 538 S.E.2d 135 (August 7, 2000). Evidence supported defendant’s conviction for aggravated battery. Contrary to defendant’s argument, evidence allowed finding of “serious disfigurement” of the victim. “‘To constitute the crime of aggravated battery, there is no requirement that, in addition to being “serious,” the disfigurement of a victim be permanent.’ In re: H.S., 199 Ga.App. 481, 405 S.E.2d 323 (1991). Whether an injury constitutes ‘serious disfigurement’ is a jury question. Keef v. State, 220 Ga.App. 134, 137, 469 S.E.2d 318 (1996). Here, the evidence showed that Silvers shattered the victim's nasal bone and caused permanent injury to the victim's sinuses. In addition, the State introduced photographs of the victim's black eyes, bruised face, and severely swollen nose, which injuries were sustained from the beating she received at Silvers' hands. Accordingly, ‘[t]he evidence in this case demonstrates, at the very least, serious temporary disfigurement to the victim,’ and Silvers' challenge to the evidence fails as a consequence. (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) In re: H.S., supra at 481, 405 S.E.2d 323.” Christensen v. State, 245 Ga.App. 165, 537 S.E.2d 446 (July 14, 2000). Aggravated battery conviction affirmed; trial court properly declined to charge jury on simple battery as a lesser included offense. “A charge on simple battery would be applicable if the State does not prove that the harm is visible per OCGA § 16–5–23.1(b) or if there is some question in that regard which might create a jury issue. [Cit.] In this case, however, there was no evidence to support a simple battery charge under OCGA § 16–5–23 because it went undisputed that the injury to the victim consisted of ‘visible bodily harm’ and that the victim's eye was substantially blackened as a result of Christensen's punch.” Barnes, joined by Mikell, dissents. Scott v. State , 243 Ga.App. 383, 532 S.E.2d 141 (March 22, 2000). Aggravated battery convictions affirmed; evidence that the victim “the victim sustained third-degree burns requiring hospitalization and skin grafts, and she has permanent scarring because defendant held her at gunpoint and subjected her to scalding hot water” was sufficient to show disfigurement. “‘Black's Law Dictionary defines “disfigurement” as “that which impairs or injures ... the appearance of a person ...,” and defines “serious” as “grave, (or) great.”’ Baker v. State, 246 Ga. 317, 318(2), 271 S.E.2d 360 (1980).” 4. AGGRAVATED BATTERY ON A CORRECTIONAL OFFICER Taylor v. State, 319 Ga.App. 850, 738 S.E.2d 679 (February 21, 2013). Physical precedent only. Conviction for aggravated battery on a correctional officer reversed for failure to prove that the victim was “ “‘certified by the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council pursuant to Chapter 8 of Title 35’ as required under [OCGA § 16-5-24(e).”