[UCANSEE2]

Prosecution wanting a definition of ‘great bodily harm’.

Judge asking for case law.

Defense stating that the Supreme court uses those words and doesn’t provide a definition because.... it’s common sense.

Judge and Prosecutor claiming that can’t be true because they don’t know what ‘common sense’ means.

[PapaBear3625]

Prosecution wanting a definition of ‘great bodily harm’. Judge asking for case law.

Florida appeals court case from 2008, MORTON v. STATE gives definition:

(1) Serious bodily injury defines itself and is understood by its everyday common usage.

(2) The word “serious,” when used to define the degree of bodily injury, means dangerous, grave, grievous, or great, as distinguished from slight.   It is a bodily injury which has important or dangerous possible consequences.

(3) Serious bodily injury may include, but does not require, serious permanent disfigurement or a protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member or organ.

(4) The determination of whether a bodily injury constitutes serious bodily injury is solely a question of fact for the jury.

A beating which could produce disfigurement or brain damage has the potential of "great bodily injury"

[Political Junkie Too]

Judge and Prosecutor claiming that can’t be true because they don’t know what ‘common sense’ means.

How can this be true when so much of law is based on the idea of what "a reasonable person would do?"

A "reasonable person" is only such because of the exercise of "common sense."

-PJ