PRACTICE NOTE: See People v. Reed (CO 1985) 695 P2d 806, 808 [no rational basis for distinguishing between "great" and "serious" as applied to bodily injury]; see also Barbee v. State (IN 1977) 369 NE2d 1072 ["great bodily injury" defined as "serious and violent injury which could reasonably result in loss of health, life or limb"].)

RESEARCH NOTES:

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 5 - CHAPTER 59

PRACTICE NOTE: See People v. Fichtner (CO 1994) 869 P2d 539, 540 [court correctly instructed the jury on the elements of the offense of menacing, but did not specifically define the term "serious bodily injury" in one of the elements].

PRACTICE NOTE: U.S. v. Johnson (9th Cir. 1980) 637 F2d 1224, 1245-46, held it was error to instruct the jury that unconsciousness was determinative of "serious bodily injury." Unconsciousness...is specific and clearly identifiable. It either occurred or it did not occur. The terms of the instruction did not permit the jury any room for considering the length of time unconsciousness persisted or the severity of any accompanying injuries: once unconsciousness was found, the case for serious bodily injury had been made out.

    "For these reasons, the instruction runs counter to the widely held and we believe better view that the existence and definition of serious bodily injury in a given case is primarily a jury question dependent upon an evaluation of all the circumstances of the injury or injuries.  The jury should have been allowed to consider unconsciousness as a factor, but the fact of unconsciousness much like the fact of broken bones should not necessarily be determinative." (U.S. v. Johnson (9th Cir. 1980) 637 F2d at 1224,1246.)