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

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 77
Go to Volume 7 Table of Contents - Go to Chapter 77 Table of Contents

77.11 Mayhem

    77.11.2 Mayhem/Disfigurement: Miscellaneous Issues

    77.11.2.1 Mayhem: Prosecution Burden To Prove Permanence
    77.11.2.2 Mayhem: Intent Not To Be Inferred From Injuries Alone

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

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 77

PRACTICE NOTE: See State v. Combs (WV 1980) 280 SE2d 809, 810 [reversible error to shift burden of proof and require defendant to disprove the existence of intent to produce a permanent disability or disfigurement].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.2 [Mayhem].

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

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 77

RATIONALE: Without special instruction the jury may rely only on the nature of the injuries to find the defendant guilty of mayhem.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: The intent necessary for aggravated mayhem cannot be inferred solely from evidence that the injury inflicted permanent disfigurement. Instead, there must be other facts and circumstances which give rise to an inference of intent to maim rather than an indiscriminate attack. (See People v. Lee (CA 1990) 220 CA3d 320, 325 [269 CR 434]; People v. Ferrell (CA 1990) 218 CA3d 828, 832-33 [267 CR 283]; Commonwealth v. Hogan (MA 1979) 387 NE2d 158, 163 [evidence that defendant intended to commit assault and battery by means of dangerous weapon was insufficient to sustain conviction of mayhem, absent additional evidence that defendant possessed the required specific malicious intent to maim or disfigure victim in course of attack]; State v. Riddick (NC 1986) 340 SE2d 422, 430 [evidence was insufficient to establish defendant's intent to murder, maim or disfigure by throwing acid]; Scott v. State (TX 1958) 317 SW2d 734, 736 [evidence of mayhem insufficient where there was an entire absence of any evidence showing express malice or specific intent on the part of appellant to disfigure]; but see Commonwealth v. Sparks (MA 1997) 675 NE2d 1176, 1177.)

    See also FORECITE National™ 77.1.3.7 [Attempted-Battery Assault: Defense Theory That Victim's Injuries Should Only Be Considered When Relevant To Intent].

    See also FORECITE National™ 77.1.3.8 [Attempted-Battery Assault: Defense Theory That Lack Of Injury Shows Lack Of Intent To Injure].

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 2.4; 4.1].

UNPUBLISHED OPINION AVAILABLE: Click here. [Opinion Bank # O-217].

RESEARCH NOTES:

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.2 [Mayhem].

    The necessary specific intent to maim, cannot be inferred solely from evidence that the injury inflicted caused permanent disfigurement should you so find. There must be other facts and circumstances which prove an intent to [maim] [permanently disfigure].