Also known as: great bodily harms · grievous bodily harm · GBH · serious bodily injury
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A level of physical injury that is significant or substantial as opposed to minor or moderate harm. The injury creates a substantial risk of death or causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.
Aidan locked Alfred in a conference room and struck him repeatedly in the head with a heavy stapler and closed-fist punches until Alfred lost consciousness. Alfred later died from a brain hemorrhage caused by the head trauma. The sustained blows to the head supplied the intent to inflict great bodily harm that established malice aforethought for common-law murder.
Melanie grabbed Elliott's laptop and fled. When Elliott pursued her, Melanie slammed a heavy metal door on his hand, crushing multiple bones and severing tendons. The resulting injuries constituted serious bodily injury that satisfied the aggravating element of robbery under the Model Penal Code.
Bernice seized a metal gaff hook and jabbed it at Miguel, tearing his thigh after first shoving him against a rail and causing a severe concussion. The use of the gaff hook as an instrument likely to cause serious bodily injury permitted the factfinder to infer an intent to kill for purposes of implied malice.
After taking the laptop, Melanie pointed a realistic-looking replica pistol at Elliott and stated she would shoot him if he followed her. The threat purposely placed Elliott in fear of immediate serious bodily injury, satisfying an alternative aggravating element of robbery.
Walter injected an elderly patient with a large unauthorized dose of sedative to clear a path during a nighttime theft attempt. The injection created a substantial risk of respiratory arrest and death, constituting a threat of serious bodily injury that elevated the offense to first-degree rape under the Model Penal Code.
The prosecution charged a defendant with murder after he inflicted repeated head trauma that caused a brain hemorrhage. The state bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with intent to inflict great bodily harm rather than in the heat of passion.
In June 1966, a jury convicted Stillman E. Wilbur, Jr. of murder in a Maine state court. The prosecution introduced Wilbur's pretrial statement describing how he fatally assaulted Claude Hebert in Hebert's hotel room after a homosexual advance, together with circumstantial evidence of the killing. Although the defense presented no evidence at trial, it argued that Wilbur lacked criminal intent or that the homicide amounted at most to manslaughter because it occurred in the heat of passion provoked by the advance. The trial court instructed the jury that an intentional and unlawful homicide would support a finding of malice aforethought unless the defendant proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence that he acted in the heat of passion on sudden provocation. After the jury twice returned for additional instructions on implied malice and the definition of heat of passion, it convicted Wilbur of murder. Wilbur appealed his conviction to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, which upheld the trial court's instructions and affirmed the judgment. Wilbur then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court granted the petition, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed that decision. After the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued its opinion in State v. Lafferty reaffirming its view of state law, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case and remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration. On remand, that court again applied Winship, this time to the Maine law as construed by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari a second time to consider the constitutional question presented by the Maine homicide law as applied to Wilbur's case.
View caseGreat bodily harm requires significant or substantial injury that creates a substantial risk of death or causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted impairment of bodily function. Ordinary bodily injury lacks this degree of severity. The distinction determines whether an intent to inflict such harm supplies implied malice for common-law murder.
Supporting sources
Yes. Repeated strikes to the head with a heavy stapler until the victim loses consciousness permit an inference of deliberate intent to cause serious injury. The choice of weapon and anatomical target support a finding of implied malice even without an explicit plan to kill.
Supporting sources
Yes. Crushing multiple bones and severing tendons produces protracted loss or impairment of function that meets the definition of serious bodily injury. The injury occurred during flight after a theft and therefore satisfies the aggravating element under Model Penal Code robbery.
Supporting sources
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with intent to inflict great bodily harm. Shifting that burden to the defendant violates due process because the mental state is an essential element of the offense rather than an affirmative defense.
Supporting sources
…731 A. 2d, at 498. In the dissent's view, the facts increasing sentences in both Almendarez-Torres (recidivism) and Jones (serious bodily injury) were quite distinct from New Jersey's required finding of purpose here; the latter finding turns directly on the conduct of the defendant during the crime and defines a level of…