A violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (d), battery with serious bodily injury, requires only an injury as defined in subdivision (f)(4) and it does not require a showing of medical treatment. Serious bodily injury is defined in the statute as serious impairment of physical condition, including but not limited to, loss of consciousness, concussion, bone fracture, protracted loss or impairment of function of any bodily member or organ, a wound involving extensive suturing and serious disfigurement. Defendant relied on section 243, subdivision (f)(5) which relates to injuries inflicted on peace officers and other specified persons and elevates those misdemeanor batteries to a felony for injury, defined as physical injury which requires professional medical treatment. Wade argued that a finding of serious bodily injury requires injury requiring medical treatment. The statutory definition and CALCRIM No. 3160 do not require a showing of medical treatment. Concepts of statutory construction do not require it.

The amendment which increased the threshold value for grand theft applies retroactively to cases not yet final at the time of its passage notwithstanding an alternative theory of grand theft which does not depend on value. One of Wade’s convictions was for grand theft, as a lesser offense of robbery, based on the taking of $700 in cash from Jane Doe II’s purse. The jury was instructed that grand theft involved property worth more than $400. After the notice of appeal was filed, the statute was amended to define grand theft as the taking of property worth more than $950. He was entitled to the benefit of the amendment which mitigates punishment. There was no way to determine whether the jury’s verdict relied on the valid theory of grand theft person, or the invalid theory based on the value, so the conviction was modified to the lesser offense of petty theft.