State of Iowa v. Carmela Canady

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: March 8, 2023
• Docket: 22-0284
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0284 Filed March 8, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CARMELA CANADY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mark C. Cord,

District Associate Judge.

Carmela Canady appeals her conviction for assault causing bodily injury.

AFFIRMED.

Rees Conrad Douglas, Sioux City, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ. 2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

Carmela Canady appeals her conviction for assault causing bodily injury,

claiming there is insufficient evidence that she caused a bodily injury. We review

her claim for correction of errors at law, viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the State. See State v. Jones, 967 N.W.2d 336, 339 (Iowa 2021).

Because substantial evidence supports Canady’s conviction, we affirm. See id.

We begin by summarizing the incident that led to Canady’s prosecution and

conviction. That incident occurred while Canady worked as a caretaker at a

residential facility for adults with intellectual disabilities. During a shift in December

2018, another caretaker witnessed Canady grabbing one of the residents by his

shoulder and head. Canady’s fingernails dug into his forehead. Although Canady

released the resident when she noticed her coworker watching, marks that

resembled fingerprints remained visible on his forehead. After the coworker

reported the incident, a nurse examined the resident. The nurse documented two

visible injuries: a one-inch scratch on his left upper arm and a one-centimeter

indent on his forehead.

In her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, Canady claims the

scratch to the resident’s arm or indentation to his head is insufficient proof of bodily

injury. The jury instructions defined “bodily injury” as “pain, illness, or any

impairment of physical condition.” Canady is correct that visible marks, like welts

and bruises, are not physical injuries. See State v. Gordon, 560 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Iowa

1997). But a jury can consider these marks evidence that an injury occurred. Id.;

see also State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116, 136 (Iowa 2004) (clarifying Gordon). 3

The evidence that Canady caused injury goes beyond the visible marks

viewed by the coworker and nurse. The coworker also testified that the resident

said “ouch” when Canady grabbed him. From this, the jury could infer that

Canady’s actions caused pain. See State v. Canas, 597 N.W.2d 488, 495 (Iowa

1999) (holding that brief pain without visible injury or need for medical attention is

sufficient evidence of bodily injury), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Turner,

630 N.W.2d 601, 606 n.2 (Iowa 2001); see also Taylor, 689 N.W.2d at 136 (“We

think the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the defendant’s assault

caused physical pain so as to meet the definition of bodily injury.”). This pain,

coupled with the marks on the resident’s arm and forehead, supports the verdict.