State v. Nelson

Decision Date02 May 2000
PartiesSTATE of Tennessee, v. Roy D. NELSON.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Donald E. Spurrell, Johnson City, Tennessee, for appellant, Roy D. Nelson.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General, and Gordon W. Smith, Associate Solicitor General, Nashville, Tennessee, for appellee, State of Tenn.

OPINION

BARKER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which ANDERSON, C.J., and DROWOTA, BIRCH, and HOLDER, JJ. joined.

This is an appeal from the Criminal Court for Washington County which convicted the defendant of aggravated arson. The defendant appealed and argued that the aggravated arson statute applies only when an individual other than the arsonist sustains serious bodily injuries. Accordingly, because he was the individual who sustained serious bodily injuries, the defendant contended that the aggravated arson statute was inapplicable. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and we granted the defendant's application for permission to appeal. We hold that where a defendant sustains serious bodily injuries as the result of an arson he or she committed, that defendant my be convicted of aggravated arson pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-302(a)(2) (1997). Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the trial court and the Court of Criminal Appeals.

On the evening of June 3, 1994, the defendant, Roy D. Nelson, entered the basement of Angela Nelson's house and poured gasoline on the floor.1 As he walked up the stairs to the residential portion of the house, the defendant lit a cigarette which ignited the gasoline fumes causing an explosion that rocked the brick house from its foundation as well as a fire. The defendant was admitted to the hospital later that evening where he was treated for first, second, and third degree burns he sustained in the explosion and fire.

The defendant was indicted and convicted for aggravated arson on the grounds that he suffered serious bodily injury, thus triggering application of the aggravated arson statute. The defendant appealed arguing that the aggravated arson statute applies only when some individual other than the arsonist sustains a serious bodily injury. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and we granted the defendant's application for permission to appeal on this issue.2

DISCUSSION

When statutory language is plain and unambiguous, this Court must not apply a construction apart from the words of the statute. See Fletcher v. State, 9 S.W.3d 103, 105 (Tenn.1999). The aggravated arson statute at issue in this case provides:

A person commits aggravated arson who commits arson as defined in § 39-14-301 or XX-XX-XXX ... when any person, including firefighters and law enforcement officials, suffers serious bodily injury as a result of the fire or explosion.

Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-14-302(a)(2) (1997). The criminal code further defines "person" to include "the singular and plural and means and includes any individual." Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(27) (1997) (emphasis added). Thus, the plain language of the aggravated arson statute includes not only victims of aggravated arson but also the perpetrator of the act of arson.

The defendant asserts, however, that the language and history of section -302(a)(2) is ambiguous, and that if the General Assembly intended for the aggravated arson statute to apply where the arsonist is injured, it would have clearly stated so. For this argument, the defendant relies on Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-16-602(a) (1997) which makes it a criminal offense to intentionally prevent or obstruct a law enforcement officer "from effecting a stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant." We do not agree, however, from this statutory language that magic words like "including the defendant" must be explicitly incorporated into all statutes to impose criminal liability for aggravated offenses. By broadly defining "person" in section -106(a)(27), the General Assembly has already established the scope of "person" to include defendants. Consequently, the extra statutory language suggested by the defendant is redundant. Thus, whether or not "including the defendant" was written explicitly into section -602(a), defendants would be implicitly included pursuant to the statutory definition of "person."

We note that if the General Assembly intended to limit the class of persons for which convictions for aggravated offenses may be had it could have done so. Indeed, throughout the criminal code, the General Assembly has limited application of aggravated offense statutes to situations involving "victims" or individuals other than the defendant.3 Because the General Assembly has not seen fit to limit section -302(a)(2) to persons other than the defendant as it has done in so many other section...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • State v. Pickett
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • January 22, 2007
    ...we apply the plain language in its normal and accepted use." Boarman v. Jaynes, 109 S.W.3d 286, 291 (Tenn.2003) (citing State v. Nelson, 23 S.W.3d 270, 271 (Tenn.2000)). At the time of the offenses in these cases, Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1003 provided as (a) It is unlawful fo......
  • State v. Aguilar
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • December 18, 2013
    ...we apply the plain language in its normal and accepted use.” Boarman v. Jaynes, 109 S.W.3d 286, 291 (Tenn.2003) (citing State v. Nelson, 23 S.W.3d 270, 271 (Tenn.2000)). “It is only when a statute is ambiguous that we may reference the broader statutory scheme, the history of the legislatio......
  • State v. Bohannon
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • April 17, 2018
    ...the plain language in its normal and accepted use." Id. (citing Boarman v. Jaynes, 109 S.W.3d 286, 291 (Tenn. 2003) and State v. Nelson, 23 S.W.3d 270, 271 (Tenn. 2000)). In resolving this issue, we must first acknowledge the plain meaning of the word distribution. Black's Law Dictionary de......
  • State v. Kennedy, M2013-02207-CCA-R9-CD
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals
    • October 3, 2014
    ...we apply the plain language in its normal and accepted use." Boarman v. Jaynes, 109 S.W.3d 286, 291 (Tenn. 2003) (citing State v. Nelson, 23 S.W.3d 270, 271 (Tenn. 2000)). "It is only when a statute is ambiguous that we may reference the broader statutory scheme, the history of the legislat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT