*1 Tennessee, Appellant, STATE LEVANDOWSKI, Appellee.
Betty D. Tennessee,
Supreme Court of
at Knoxville. 6, 1997.
Oct. Knoxville, Irvine, Jr., Ap- F.
Kenneth pellant. Attorney Walkup, General
John Knox Moore, Gener- Reporter, Michael E. Solicitor Attorney al, Ryan, Assistant Elizabeth T. Wells, Jr., Nashville, General, Greeley H. General, Nancy Attorney Stallard District Staubus, Harr, District Barry Assistant P. Blountville, General, Appellee. Attorneys OPINION BIRCH, Justice. wheth- appeal,1 we must determine this to an response from an individual
aer false Advancing Legal for Stu- May preme Education argument this case on 1. Oral was heard in Morristown, 7, 1997, dents) County, project. Ten- Hamblen (Su- nessee, part Court’s S.C.A.L.E.S. of this *2 604 ordinary meaning. v. and Crowe
inquiry by a law enforcement officer common made 721, (Tenn.1991); 723 report meaning Ferguson, 814 S.W.2d constitutes a false within 39-16-502(a)(1) (1991). Cty. Cty. § v. Marion Marion Bd. Comm’rs of Tenn.Code of 681, review, Comm’n, § hold that 39—16—Election 594 S.W.2d After careful we (Tenn.1980). 502(a)(1) assume that The Court should applies to statements volunteered in the legislature does not used each word statute or initiated an individual but these words purposely and that the use of apply to statements made Crowe, 814 conveyed officers. Ac some intent. S.W.2d inquiries law enforcement Olds, 723; Oyster v. judgment of the of Anderson Fish & Co. cordingly, 604, 344, Appeals 277 S.W.2d 346 Criminal is affirmed. 197 Tenn. Furthermore, may previ- this Court review Levandowski, defendant, Betty was subject legislation on the in an effort to ous aggravated of child abuse and mak- convicted legislature. present intention of the learn report. appeal, Levandowski ing a false On statutes, pre- construing courts must Id. argued report that the false statute was “ov- knowledge of legislature sume erly vague.” broad The intermediate and the state of prior its enactments and knows aggravated court affirmed the conviction for passes legislation. the law at the time it child abuse and reversed the conviction (Tenn. State, 923, 926 v. 908 Owens S.W.2d making granted We 1995). appeal application permission State’s grant report” and limited the to the “false Finally, penal are con statutes issue. strictly against the State. State strued (Tenn.1987). Bobo, 945, 727 952 S.W.2d construction,
I general statutory rule of As is con any ambiguity in a criminal statute 1994, 19, May an officer with the On in favor of the defendant. State strued Department to Levan- Kingsport Police went Blouvett, 113 904 investigate of sus- dowski’s home to (Tenn.1995)(ciimg Key v. 563 S.W.2d arrival, pected Upon the officer child abuse. (Tenn.1978)). 184, 188 asked to see the spoke with Levandowski and responded Levandowski that she had child. mind, turn we With these caveats boy Chicago and if the put the on a bus to Tennessee Code to the statute at issue. her, he could look officer did not believe 39-16-502(a) perti provides § Annotated Later, however, the child was found around. part: nent Levandowski neighboring in a residence. any person to: It is unlawful for subsequently indicted for and convicted was (1) officer an a law enforcement Report to Tenn.Code Ann. 39-16- of a violation of the officer’s con- or incident within offense 502(a)(1) response to the offi- for her false cern: child’s question cer’s as to the whereabouts. relating to Knowing the information
II
is false ...
the offense
is a
construction of a statute
The
law,
thus,
de
our review is
question
outset,
of
previous
we note that the
At the
Roseman,
Roseman v.
890 S.W.2d
novo.
worded more
of this statute was
version
(Tenn.1994);
v. Tennessee
The Beare Co.
broadly:
(Tenn.
Revenue,
Dept.
858 S.W.2d
(a)
the offense of false
A
commits
1993);
Network, Inc. v. Tennessee
Comdata
if he:
reporting to authorities
(Tenn.
Revenue,
Dept.
852 S.W.2d
1993).
(3)
causes the
report, purposely
Makes
of a
so as
transmission
A statute must be construed
infor-
furnishes
con-
enforcement authorities
mation
give effect to the intent and
to ascertain and
or other incident within
cerning a crime
legislation considering the
purpose of the
if he knows that he
concern
their
their official
giving
a whole and
words
statute as
ambiguous.
Arguably, the statute
manner.
relating to such
such information
has no
to construe
course is
or he knows that
believe the better
or incident
We
crime
§Ann.
39-16-
information is false....
in Tenn.Code
“report” as used
use in the other sec-
with its
502 consistent
(1983)(emphasis
As a criminal
criminal code.
tions of the
added). Thus,
to conclude
it is reasonable
subject
strict
also
*3
39-16-502 is
legislature
amending the
the
that in
in
it
in favor of the defendant.
to narrow the situations which
construction
intended
applies.
legislature defined
note that the
We also
legis
carefully
the
have also
reviewed
We
im-
in the subsection
“statement”
the term
“report” in other
of the term
lature’s use
at issue
the subsection
mediately preceding
legisla
criminal code. The
sections of the
§ 39-16-
legislature intended
Had the
here.
“report”
consistently
used the term
ture
statements,
the
responsive
to
apply
502 to
initiates the
in
where the individual
contexts
“state-
to use would have been
obvious term
information,
in contexts
provision of the
not
Smith, 131
People
in
The court
ment.”
in
responding to an
an individual is
where
(Cal.Su-
889,
(2) Intentionally initiate or circulate a STATUTORY INTERPRETATION past, present, impending of a or bombing, emergency, knowing fire or other principle statutory con The most basic of that the is false or and baseless give struction is to to ascertain and effect knowing: legislative intent. Owens v. 908 (A) any It action of an will cause sort (Tenn.1995). 923, Legislative in S.W.2d 926 organized agency official or volunteer to possible tent is to be ascertained whenever emergencies; deal with those ordinary meaning from the natural and of the (B) place It in fear of will used, language or subtle con without forced bodily injury; imminent serious or struction that would limit or extend the meaning language. of the Carson Creek Va prevent interrupt It will or the occu- Resorts, State, Dept. cation Inc. v. Reve pation any building, place of of assem- of (Tenn.1993) nue, 1, (emphasis 865 2 S.W.2d bly, conveyance, any form of or other added). presume Courts must the that Gen place public to which the has access. every Assembly eral word used intended added.) (Emphasis and The natural ordi- purpose convey in a statute would have a and “report,” nary meaning of the word includes Cohen, 823, meaning. Cohen v. 937 S.W.2d inquiries by statements to (Tenn.1996). presence 827 of of The words “report” law enforcement officials. To sim- part limitation one of statute indicates of, relate, ply give means an account to “[t]o that the absence of such words from other tell, convey to to or disseminate information.” parts of the an same statute is intentional ed.1990). (6th Dictionary, Law 1300 Black’s Harkins, legislative choice. State v. 811 majority’s interpretation unwar- The is an (Tenn.1991). legislative 82 If the meaning limitation of the of the lan- ranted expressed intent is in a manner of devoid guage of in contravention of this ambiguity, and there is no contradiction duty. Court’s constructions, interpretation room for or and language of a statute is free Where the liberty, on of courts are not at consideration ambiguity, extrinsic aids to from resort policy hardship depart or from the words appropri- legislative intent is not determine Re of the statute. Carson Creek Vacation Roseman, 890 S.W.2d ate. Roseman sorts, Inc., 2. the lan 865 S.W.2d at Where (Tenn.1994); Re- Carson Creek Vacation guage within the four corners of a contained sorts, Inc., 2. 865 S.W.2d at Because clear, plain, unambiguous, statute is and in this case is language of the statute issue obvious, duty simple “to of the courts is and clear, upon reliance extrinsic Id, say scripta, obey quoting it.” sic lex inap- is legislative aids to determine intent Hum.) Childress, (2 Miller v. Tenn. However, even propriate unnecessary. statutory language ambiguous, if is when dis- only appropri- cerning legislative intent it is language The contained within the four 39-16-502(a) pari “in materia”— ate to statutes corners of Tenn.Code consider to state that Justice I am authorized subject having relating to the same those Opin- Dissenting Owens, concurs this HOLDER 908 S.W.2d at purpose. a common ion. case, majority upon relies In this 926. “report” in other of the term
the definition support interpreta- statutes to its
unrelated majori- Conspicuously absent from the
tion. words
ty is a discussion of the other decision of the statute at issue
used in the remainder expressly application limit of Tenn.
which (1991 39—16—502(a)(2) Repl.) Ann.
Code “intentionally or cir- reports initiate[d] false Tennessee, DEPARTMENT OF of STATE that, clear by individuals. It is culate[d]” SERVICES, Appellee, HUMAN limit Assembly intended to had the General 39-16- application of Tenn.Code 502(a)(1) reports, false declarant-initiated PURCELL, Inmate Karen Sue Jackson language to do so. appropriate was available Pris- # Tennessee Women’s State Therefore, express limita- the absence of an Tennessee, on, Nashville, Appellant. (a)(1) against militates tion from subsection Tennessee, Appeals adopted by interpretation Middle Section. Assembly de- and indicates General *5 liberately give chose to that subsection a Feb. 1997. Harkins, application. broad Appeal Denied Permission to 82. 8,1997. Sept. Supreme Court
Finally, important element to consider determining
in has whether person gave whether
been made is (A) knowing or incident the offense (B) occur; person reporting not
did relating offense or
no information to the
incident; relating to the information 39-
the offense is false. Tenn.Code (1991
16-502(a)(1) upon Repl.). By focusing party initiating during which the contact given,
the false statement over
exalts form substance. See State
Fenster, Conn.Cir.Ct. A.2d
(1962) (so characterizing of “re the definition Smith, adopted People in
port” 131 Cal. (Cal.Su Supp.
App.2d
per.1955), which the rely.)
case hold, Jerry in Judge
I Smith held would Appeals,
his dissent the Court Criminal “report,” as used (1991 state- Repl.), includes inquiries
ments Therefore, I re- officials. would
enforcement Appeals’ decision
verse the Court Criminal of mak- affirm the defendant’s conviction respectfully I dissent
ing a false
from the decision.