Bodily injury and serious bodily injury.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: HB0009 Drafter: LNS LSO No.: 14LSO-0033 Effective Date: 7/1/2014 Enrolled Act No.: HEA0008 Chapter No.: CH0012 Prime Sponsor: Joint Judiciary Interim Committee Catch Title: Bodily injury and serious bodily injury. Subject: Changes the definition of bodily injury and serious bodily injury in Title 6 of the criminal statutes. Summary/Major Elements: Revises the definition of bodily injury to mean: o a cut, abrasion, burn or temporary disfigurement; o physical pain; or o impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty. Revises the definition of serious bodily injury to mean an injury which: o creates a substantial risk of death; o causes severe protracted physical pain; o causes severe disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of a bodily function; o causes unconsciousness or a concussion resulting in protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ or mental faculty; o causes burns of the 2 nd or 3 rd degree over a significant portion of the body; or o causes a significant fracture or break of a bone.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 7, 12:32 PM
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports leaving the language as is because they believe prosecutors should have the discretion to decide whether a specific injury, such as a broken pinky in different contexts, warrants felony charges.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe laws must be clear and do not trust prosecutorial judgment in every situation to interpret ambiguous language correctly.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that domestic violence situations are already covered by separate statutes and laws, implying the current bill should remain a general law not specific to those instances.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports moving the bill forward because current case law makes it difficult for prosecutors to interpret statutes regarding battery and mutual combat, necessitating legislative clarification.
H05
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because they believe the current wording is ambiguous and could lead to charging aggravated assault for insignificant breaks of significant bones or vice versa.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
5 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
5 stored
Adopted 2nd reading by GREEAR
Filed 2nd reading by NICHOLAS,B
Adopted, Corrected 2nd reading by NICHOLAS,B
Failed, Corrected 2nd reading by NICHOLAS,B
Adopted 3rd reading by LUBNAU