{ "id": 6652695, "name": "Danny Franklin SPENCER v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Spencer v. State", "decision_date": "1986-03-12", "docket_number": "CA CR 85-179", "first_page": "149", "last_page": "151", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "17 Ark. App. 149" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "705 S.W.2d 454" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "260 Ark. 665", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1616763 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/260/0665-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Ark. App. 53", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6649236 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/11/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 Ark. App. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137907 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/14/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 Ark. App. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138516 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/7/0130-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 297, "char_count": 3632, "ocr_confidence": 0.892, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1794942485063801 }, "sha256": "4a3bb05a4a2c800b491f095b1f1c3f4a706b85cb2598a63befb6d2ccc9c21f10", "simhash": "1:bd4a291656a0d2c3", "word_count": 614 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:03.800747+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Cloninger and Corbin, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Danny Franklin SPENCER v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge.\nAppellant Danny Spencer was convicted by a jury of battery in the third degree. He was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $1,000.\nThe charge against appellant involved his girl friend\u2019s two- and-a-half-year-old daughter, Nikki, and arose after a babysitter noticed what appeared to be bite marks on the child\u2019s buttocks, and pinch marks and apparent fingerprints on the child\u2019s face. Upon being questioned, the child said that Danny had bitten and hurt her. The babysitter contacted SCAN and an investigation by the Barling Police Department ensued.\nAppellant\u2019s sole argument for reversal is that the state failed to prove the existence of a physical injury. Battery in the third degree is committed if a person purposely or recklessly causes physical injury to another person. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a741-1603(1) (Repl. 1977). Physical injury is defined as the impairment of physical condition or the infliction of substantial pain. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-115(14) (Repl. 1977). Appellant contends the state has produced no evidence that Nikki suffered an impaired physical condition or substantial pain.\nThe appellant relies on Kelley v. State, 7 Ark. App. 130, 644 S.W.2d 638 (1983), where the majority concluded that the victim\u2019s testimony that he believed the cut he received went through his clothes but was not sure because it had been so long ago, and the testimony of a witness that the injury was like a \u201cfingernail scratch\u201d did not constitute enough evidence of substantial pain to support a conviction of third degree battery. Appellant contends that bite marks on the child\u2019s buttocks and pinch marks on her face are not sufficient to constitute physical injury as interpreted by controlling case law.\nWe do not agree. We think this case falls in a category with Middleton v. State, 14 Ark. App. 92, 685 S.W.2d 182(1985), and Hall v. State, 11 Ark. App. 53, 666 S.W.2d 408 (1984), which the appellant tries to distinguish. In both of those cases, as here, only bruises were shown, but it was held that there was evidence of the infliction of substantial pain. In Hall, that evidence was testimony that the appellant had hit a six-year-old child, knocking him down, and in Middleton, it was a statement that the appellant had grabbed and squeezed a baby\u2019s chin and left bruises on her. Here, there is testimony by the babysitter, Mrs. Crowson, that Nikki appeared to be terrified of appellant; that there were occasions when the child reacted strongly to his presence; and that once, when Danny and Mrs. Crowson\u2019s husband were alone with Nikki in the Crowson house, Nikki started screaming and ran to Mrs. Crowson\u2019s husband and would not let go of him. The jury could reasonably find from this testimony that the infliction of the bruises was accompanied by the infliction of substantial pain.\nOur criminal code scales battery in degrees of first, second, and third, with the severity of punishment based in part on the harm done to the victim. Harmon v. State, 260 Ark. 665, 543 S.W.2d 43 (1976), Hall v. State, supra. We think there is a distinct difference between the pain sustained by a man who couldn\u2019t remember the incident and a child who showed fear of an adult who had bitten her.\nWe find no merit in appellant\u2019s argument that the state failed to show substantial pain.\nAffirmed.\nCloninger and Corbin, JJ., agree.", "type": "majority", "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "John W. Settle, by: J. Fred Hart, Jr., for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Danny Franklin SPENCER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 85-179\n705 S.W.2d 454\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered March 12, 1986\nJohn W. Settle, by: J. Fred Hart, Jr., for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0149-01", "first_page_order": 181, "last_page_order": 183 }