In a recent Kansas Supreme Court opinion, the court analyzed the case of Mr. Kevin LeRoy Gatlin. State v. Gatlin, No. 99,091 (Kan. 2011). During a bar fight between Mr. Gatlin and a George Hoffman, somehow Mr. Gatlin managed to bite off the tip of Hoffman’s thumb. After arrest, Mr. Gatlin was charged with intentional aggravated battery causing disfigurement under K.S.A. 21-3414(a)(1)(A), among other offenses. While Mr. Gatlin admitted to biting off Hoffman’s finger, he claimed he was intoxicated, got into a fight, and that Hoffman held his finger in Mr. Gatlin’s mouth. Essentially, Mr. Gatlin argued that under the circumstances, the biting attack was a reckless act instead of an intentional act. The trial denied his argument and did not instruct the jury on the lesser crime of reckless aggravated battery. Mr. Gatlin was convicted of intentional aggravated battery causing disfigurement.
The court finds a reasonable jury could have found Mr. Gatlin engaged in reckless conduct instead of intentional conduct. Viewing the evidence, a reasonable jury could have found Mr. Gatlin bit “Hoffman’s thumb to persuade Hoffman to release the chokehold, knowing that this put Hoffman in danger and yet consciously disregarding that danger; or he may have chosen to allow Hoffman’s thumb to remain in his mouth as the two men struggled, knowing but consciously disregarding the danger that they would lose their balance and hit the ground.” Id. Under either theory, a jury could find he did not intend to bite off part of Hoffman’s thumb.
As a result, the Supreme Court finds the district court committed reversible error when it refused to instruct the jury on the lesser included reckless aggravated battery offenses. The conviction is reversed and Mr. Gatlin will receive a new trial.
To contact an experienced criminal attorney, contact Bell Folsom, P.A. today.