### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs N ove m be r 22, 200 5
STA TE OF TEN NES SEE v. SHA NE M. MC AN ALL Y Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Bedf ord County No. 15666 Lee R ussell, Ju dge

No. M2005- 00774-CCA -R3-C D - F iled May 3, 2006

David G. Hay es, Judge, dissenting

.
My c oll e a g ue s c on c lud e that, u nd e r the fa c ts of thi s c a se , the app e lla nt’ s a c t of ur inatin g in the patrol c ar c onstitut es vanda lism. Irespe ctfully disag ree
. The majority

conclude s that the ap p el l ant “da mag ed the pa trol car by contaminating it,”althoug h no pecunia

ry damag es we re pr oven at tria l. Additionally , the majority conclude s that the appe llant “tamper ed with the patr ol car ” by his act of ur ination. I am unable to ag ree with either of these c onclusions. The majority

define s “conta minating” as “to soil, stain, defile, taint, ma ke impure or

unclea n by contac t.” Tampe ring is defined as “t o i nterfe re in a harmful manne r.” I

have c oncerns that application of the se broa dly define d acts would subject a considerable number of good c itiz ens of this State on any g iven date to c riminal prosec ution f or vandalism. For example, a per son who enter s a bu ild ing wi th d ir t on his or he r fe e t (s oil ing ) or wh o sp ill s a nythi ng on the fl oo r ( sta ini ng ) c ou ld be c on vic te d o f v a nd a lis m w ith ou t pr oo f o f a ny pe c un iary

da ma g e s to the pr op e rt y
. “ Du e pr oc e ss require s that the law g ive suffic ient war ning so tha t people avoid conduct which is forbidden.” Sta te v. Thomas , 6 3 5 S

. W

. 2 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 6 (T en n
. 1 9 8 2 ) ( ci t i n g Rose v. Locke , 4 23 U. S. 4 8, 49 -5 0, 96 S. Ct

. 24 3, 2 4 4 , 4 6 L

. E d

. 2 d 1 8 5 ( 1 9 7 5 )

. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e T e n n e s s e e S u p r e m e C o u r t s t a t e d , “ I t is a ba sic pr inc ipl e of

du e pr oc e ss tha t a n e na ctm ent is v oidfo r v a g ue ne ss i f i ts p ro hib iti on s a re no t c le arl y define d.” Id

. (c i t i n g Gr

ay ne d v . Ci ty of R oc k

for d , 408 U.S. 104, 108, 92 S. C t. 2294, 2298, 33 L .Ed. 2d 222 (1972))

. More importantly , as pre viouslyexpressed, I conclude that under the fac ts of this case, the app e lla nt’ s a c t of

ur inatin g in p ub lic is n ot e nc omp a sse d b y the c ri me of

va nd ali sm . V a nd a lis m, which is codified in Chapte r 14, Offe nses Ag ainst Property , of our cr iminal code is direc ted at the damag e or de struction of the prope rty of another. T.C .A. § 39-14-408. A cts of vanda lism are to be valued acc ording to the provisions of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-11-106(a ) (36) (2003).-2-

Th e a c t of

ur inatin g in a pu bli c pla c e is pr os e c ute d un de r e ve ry Mo de l Co de jurisd ic tio n in the se Un ite d St a te s u nd e r the of fe ns e of dis or de rl y

c on du c t. A s r e levan t here , a pe rs on c omm its disorderly conduct whe n, “in a public plac e and wi t h intent to cause public a nnoy ance . . . (3) [he or she] c rea tes a phy sically offe nse condition by any act that serve s no leg itimate purpose.” T .C.A. § 39-17-305( a)( 3) (2003) . These are the facts as presented by the prosecution in this case . I ndeed, as evide nced by

no proof o f damag es, it is the appellant’s of fensive c onduct which is at issue a nd not the harm to prope rty

. B y ov e rc ha rg ing the Cla ss A mi sd e me a no r o ff e ns e of va nd a lis m in ste a d o f d iso rd e rl y conduct, a Class C misdemeanor, the State has indicted upon the wrong crime. For t h e above rea sons, I would reve rse a nd dismiss the conviction.

____________________________________ DAVI D G. HAY ES, J UDGE