TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- A prosecutor defended Florida's new hazing law Tuesday after its first apparent test resulted in a hung jury, but he acknowledged jurors seemed to have trouble interpreting a key provision.

A defense lawyer, though, said legislators should clarify what they mean by "serious bodily injury."

The hazing case against five Florida A&M University fraternity brothers likely will be retried, Assistant State Attorney Frank Allman said.

Circuit Judge Kathleen Dekker declared a mistrial Monday about 20 minutes after jurors had asked her for a better definition of serious bodily injury. The state must prove such an injury or death resulted from hazing to get a conviction.

The 2005 law does not define the term, and Dekker had told the six-member jury she could offer no further definition beyond her initial instructions - an injury distinct from one that is "slight" or "moderate."

"It didn't seem like that hard of a concept," Allman said. "Everybody knows the difference between having serious financial problems and slight financial problems, if you have a serious leak in your roof or a slight leak in your roof."

The jury, though, heard conflicting testimony on whether injuries that Marcus Jones, 20, of Decatur, Ga., suffered during Kappa Alpha Psi initiation rites met that criteria.

Jones's ear drum was broken and he had surgery on his buttocks, but the injuries have since healed. Jones said he was blindfolded and repeatedly hit in the head with bare knuckles and boxing gloves and struck on the rump with wooden canes on four separate nights.

The surgeon who drained blood and removed dead skin from Jones' buttocks testified that injury was as serious as anything he had seen in auto accident. An internist called as an expert witness by the defense told jurors it was nothing more than a large bruise that would have healed without surgery based on a review of photos and medical records.

Allman said he wouldn't presume to tell the Legislature what to do, but imagined lawmakers were paying attention to the case that was tried across the street from the Florida Capitol where the law was enacted.

"They're not blind to what goes on in the judicial branch," Allman said.

Defense lawyer Chuck Hobbs was more explicit.

"I think that is something that the Legislature needs to take up posthaste in the 2007 session," Hobbs said.

The hazing law's sponsor, Rep. Adam Hasner, R-Delray Beach, declined to comment on what the Legislature may do because he didn't want to jeopardize the retrial, but he also defended the statute.

"I believe this law is well written and I believe the term is understandable and determinable by a jury," Hasner said.

Hobbs pointed out the same term is used and defined in certain other Florida laws. The reckless driving law, for instance, says serious bodily injury is a physical condition "that creates a substantial risk of death, serious personal disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ."

Similar definitions appear in laws dealing with drunken driving and animal control.

Allman said Dekker reviewed some of those definitions but found they were inappropriate for the hazing case. The judge also rejected a defense motion challenging the new law as unconstitutionally vague.

That issue would be revived on appeal if the Florida A&M defendants are convicted, Hobbs said.

Allman also addressed the matter in his closing argument Monday.

"You may not be able to define it," he told jurors, "but you know it when you see it."