In re K.R., 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 532 (Ga. Ct. App. 2025)
The Georgia Court of Appeals reversed a part of the adjudication and vacated the order of disposition based on insufficient evidence. The court stated in relevant part:
“As to the second count of aggravated assault, K. R. argues that there was insufficient evidence to show that the nail clippers were an object that was likely to result in serious bodily injury under the circumstances of this case. We agree with K. R.
As previously noted, a person commits aggravated assault when she assaults someone with an object that “when used offensively against a person, is likely to . . . result in serious bodily injury.” OCGA § 16-5-21 (a) (2). Because “serious bodily injury” is not defined in the aggravated assault statute, whether an object is likely to cause serious bodily injury generally is a question for the fact finder to resolve, taking into account “all the circumstances surrounding the weapon and the manner in which it was used.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Weaver v. State, 325 Ga. App. 51, 52 (752 SE2d 128) (2013). “These circumstances include the manner and means of the object’s use, as well as any wounds inflicted and other evidence of the capabilities of the instrument.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Id. See Reese v. State, 303 Ga. App. 871, 872 (695 SE2d 326) (2010); Ellison v. State, 288 Ga. App. 404, 405 (654 SE2d 223) (2007). The burden is on the State to show that the circumstances under which the object was used by the defendant show that the object was likely to cause serious bodily injury. See Harvey v. State, 373 Ga. App. 59, 62 (1) (a) (907 SE2d 352) (2024); Byrd v. State, 325 Ga. App. 24, 28-29 (2) (a) (752 SE2d 84) (2013).
The State failed to carry its burden here. The great-grandmother testified that K. R. was “playing around” with nail clippers and “accidentally clipped [her] on the arm a little bit” as they were standing close together, and the State did not impeach the great-grandmother with any prior inconsistent statements or call any other witnesses to challenge her version of what occurred. Moreover, the great-grandmother testified without contradiction that she received only a scratch or “little scrape” that did not bleed, and she testified that the clippers probably were the type used for trimming cuticles but she was unsure. The State did not introduce into evidence the nail clippers or any photographs of the clippers or of the great-grandmother’s injury.”
