State v. JohnsonState v. Johnson
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Chavez
{1} After allegedly striking three private security guards while visiting Gallup High School, Defendant Derrick Johnson was charged with three counts of battery on school personnel, contrary to
{2} The sole issue we must decide in this case is whether the security guards may be considered “employees” of the school board for the purposes of
I. BACKGROUND
{3} Since this matter is before us on review of Defendant’s motion to dismiss, we briefly set forth the allegations in the State’s criminal complaint. See State v. Powell, 114 N.M. 395, 404, 839 P.2d 139, 148 (Ct.App.1992) (“In considering a defense motion to dismiss [a complaint], the district court accepts as true the factual allegations set forth in the [complaint].” (modifications in original, internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). In December 2005, Defendant and his cousin, Kevin Barney, visited Gallup High School. Neither Defendant nor his cousin were students at that time; their purpose in visiting the school was to return some books. Mr. Barney was involved in an altercation with a school security guard and Defendant intervened. In the ensuing scuffle, Defendant allegedly struck three security guards, Dennis Moeckel, Delbert Cachini, and Edward King. The State charged Defendant with three counts of battery upon school personnel.
{4} Defendant moved to dismiss all three counts pursuant to
{5} Regarding the evidence submitted to determine whether the guards were “school employees” under
{6} The district court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Moeckle, Cachini and King “[were] not ‘school employees’ as defined by
{7} The majority concluded that under these right to control tests, the security guards were not employees of Gallup-McKinley High School. Id. ¶ 11. It therefore determined that the plain meaning of the term “employee” as used in
{8} In her dissent, Judge Pickard took issue with the majority’s reliance on “technical employment law” to define who qualified as “school employees” under the statute. Id. ¶ 20 (Pickard, J., dissenting). Rather than looking to the right to control tests, Judge Pickard explained that she would give the term “employee” its ordinary meaning and construe the statute to effectuate its purpose. Id. ¶¶ 21-22. Consequently, Judge Pickard concluded that “the guards who are hired by the school to help maintain order, whether they are direct employees of the school or of a company that contracts with the school, seem to be deserving of the protection afforded by
II. DISCUSSION
{9} The issue of whether the security guards are “school employees” as defined in the battery upon school personnel statute is purely a legal question. Cf. Ogden, 118 N.M. at 239-40, 880 P.2d at 850-51 (“The issue of whether a Farmington [Community Services Officer] qualifies as a ‘peace officer’ under the aggravating circumstance statute is a purely legal question.”). Therefore, as a matter of statutory construction, our review is de novo. State v. Lucero, 2007-NMSC-041, ¶ 8, 142 N.M. 102, 163 P.3d 489.
{10} “The principal command of statutory construction is that the court should determine and effectuate the intent of the legislature[.]” Ogden, 118 N.M. at 242, 880 P.2d at 853. The primary indicator of legislative intent is the plain language of the statute. Id. When a term is not defined in a statute, we must construe it, giving those words “their ordinary meaning absent clear
{11}
{12} An “employee” is “[a] person who works for another in return for financial or other compensation.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 428 (1973). An “employee” is also “one employed by another ... usu[ually] for wages[.]” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 743 (1971). To “employ” means “to provide with a job that pays wages or a salary},]” and, more generally, “to use or engage the services of[.]” Id. Under the ordinary meaning of the term, an “employee” is one who provides services to another in exchange for compensation. As used in
{13} “A criminal statute must be interpreted in light of the harm or evil it seeks to prevent.” Ogden, 118 N.M. at 244, 880 P.2d at 855. In Ogden, we were faced with the issue of whether a community service officer (CSO) was a “peace officer” under the aggravating circumstance statute, NMSA 1978, Section 31-20A-5 (1981). Ogden, 118 N.M. at 237, 880 P.2d at 848. Observing that the aggravating circumstance statute did not define that term, we first defined “peace officer” according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 243-44, 880 P.2d at 854-55. We recognized, however, that “the language of penal statutes should be given a reasonable or common sense construction consonant with the objects of the legislation, and the evils sought to be overcome should be given special attention.” Id. at 243, 880 P.2d at 854. Thus, when construing an undefined term in a criminal statute, the court should embrace the common sense meaning of the statutory language in light of the rule that “criminal statutes should be construed to further their purpose.” Id. at 245, 880 P.2d at 856.
{14} In Ogden, we held that the purpose of the aggravating circumstance statute is “to deter the killing of law enforcement officers by enhancing the penalty for committing that crime.” Id. at 244, 880 P.2d at 855. After broadly defining the popularly understood meaning of “peace officers” to include those “who keep[] the peace by patrolling public areas and enforcing the law[,]” we concluded that “[protecting CSOs under the aggravating circumstance statute clearly furthers the purpose of the statute.” Id. We adopt the same analytical approach here.
{15} The purpose of the battery upon school personnel statute is to decrease incidents of violence at schools by enhancing the penalties for crimes committed against “employees” of the school. The law enacting
{17} Our conclusion that the ordinary definition of “school employee” in
{18} Defendant encourages us to strictly construe
{19} The rule of lenity is inapplicable in this case. We acknowledge that the term “employee” in certain contexts may be given the narrow reading advanced by Defendant. However, as we have discussed, the ordinary meaning of that term also includes those who are not “employees” in the strictest sense of that term. Furthermore, when considering the objects of
{20} Finally, Defendant argues that the principle of ejusdem generis dictates that our construction of the term “employee” as used in
III. CONCLUSION
{21} We hold that the contracted security guards providing services for a school are “school employees” within the meaning of
{22} IT IS SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR: PATRICIO M. SERNA, PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, RICHARD C. BOSSON, and CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justices.