-1-



### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE

AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs S ep te m be r 18, 200 7

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . TRACEY C. CLARK

Appeal f rom the Cr im inal Cou rt for William son Coun ty No. 94-031 Tim othy L. Easter, Judge

No. M2007- 00496-CCA -R3-C D - F iled April 10, 2008

T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J

. , co n cu rr i n g.

Iconcur with the result rea ched by the m ajority
, but write separately to more c losely examine

var io u s s tatute s w h ic h ar e a p p li c a b le
, e it h e r d ir e c tl y o r in d ir e c tl y , to th e is s u e in th is c a s e

. The

so ur c e of the c on te ste d issu e is Te nn e sse e Cod e Anno ta te d sec tio n 3 9- 17 -1 32 2 w hic h p ro vid e s in fu ll a s f oll ow s:

39-17-1322. De fenses. — A per son sh all

no t be c h a r

g e d with or convic ted of

a violation under

thi s p ar t if the per son possessed, display ed, or e mploy ed a handgun in justifiable self-de fense or i n justifiable defe nse of another during the commission of a cr ime in w hic h th a t pe rs on or the oth e r p e rs on

de fe nd e d w a s a

vic tim . [A c ts 1994, ch. 943, § 1.] (italicized emphasis added)

The wor ds “this part” inc lude all of the c riminal violations in part 13 of T en n es s ee Code Annotated c hapter

39, title 17, or more specific ally
, Tenne ssee Code Annotated se ctions 39-17-1001 throug h 39-17-1361, e x cept f or certain numbered sections “re serve d” (§§ 39-17-1313, 39- 17-1324 throug h 39-17-1349)

.
The c riminal violations set for th in part 13 of title 39, chapte r 17, comprise a diver se g roup of offe nses involving a wide varie ty of wea pons. Some e x amples include sectio n 3 9 -1 7 -1 302, wh ic h p ro hib its the int e nti on a l or kno wi ngpo sse ssi on , ma nu fa c tur e , tr ans po rt a tio n, sa le , o r r e pa ir of, amongother items, “a n explos ive or e x plosiv e weapon,” ( a Class B f elony ), a “ machine gun,” (a Cla ss E fe lony

), a “ sh or t- ba rr e l ri fl e or sh otgun ,” (a

Cla ss E fe lony

), a “ ho a x de vic e ,” (a

Cla ss C fe lony ), and a “ sw itc hb la de kn if

e or knuc kle s, ” (a

Cla ss Amis de me ano r) . A“ ho a x de vic e ” is define d in Tennesse e Code Annotated sec tion 39-17-1301(5) as “a ny device that rea sonably

appea rs to be or is purporte d to be an e x plosive or incendia ry device that is intended t o ca u s e al ar m or
rea ction of any

ty pe by an off icial of a public safe ty

ag ency or a voluntee r ag ency

org anized to deal

w i t h e m e r g e n c i e s

. ” A l s o i t i s a C l a s s A m i s d e m e an o r f o r a p e r s o nt o p o s s e s s an yfir e ar m within the-2-

confine s of a buildi ng wher e li quor, beer, or wine are sold for on premises consumption, T.C .A. § 39 -1 7- 13 05 (a ), (b ), e xce pt f or a fe w l imi te d e xce pti on s. On e of the se e xce pti on s is fo r a

pe rs on “ in the ac tual discharg e of duties a s a cor rec tional office r employ ed by a pena l insti tution.” T.C.A. § 3 9

- 1 7

- 1 3 0 5 ( c ) ( 1 )

. S e c t i o n 3 9

- 1 7

- 1 3 0 6 m a k e s i t a C l a s s E f e l o n y t o p o s s e s s an y fir e ar m inside any room wher e judicial proce eding s are in pr og ress, with c erta in e x ceptions including la w enf orce ment of fi c e rs in t he a c tua l di sc ha

rg e of of fi c ia l dutie s.
Appellee in this case was indicted for violating Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-17- 1 3 0 9
, s p e c i f

i c a l l y th a tp o rt i o n w h i c h p r o h i b i t s p o s s e s s i o n w i t h t h e i n t e n t t o g o ar m e d o f an y fir e ar m , among other enumer ated ty pes of wea

pons. I have emphasized the word “ firea rm” in this opinion to make the point that many of the off

enses se t fo rt h i n p ar t 13 of title 39, chapte r 17, include vio la tio ns inv olv ing a ll ty pe s of fir e arm s: rif

le s and sh otgun s as we ll as ha nd g un s. B y

its e xplic it te rm s, the statut or

y de fe ns e re lie d u

po n b y Ap pe lle e a

pp lie s on ly t o h andg uns, and not rifles, not shotguns, a

nd cer tainly not knives, knu ck l es, or “ hoax devices.” A rguably then, a pe rson who possesses in his ve hicle parke d at a school a shotgun, (normally used for hunting ), while that pe rson is attending a func tion at the school, could not avail himself of the defe nse set for th in Section 39-17- 1322, if he is cha

rg ed, as w as Appe llee, with violation of Code sec tion 39-17-1309(b)( 1), no matter what g rave circ umstances the pe rson found himself to be involved in.

Th e de fe ns e se t f

or th i n T e nn e sse e Cod e Anno ta te d sec tio n 3 9- 17 -1 32 2 is , to say the le a st, unusually draf ted. I ag ree that the trial court could not dismiss the indictment upon Appellee ’s pre

trial motion based upon the statute itself ba rringan indictment. Ther e may or may not be a r emedy fo r a pe rs on wh o is wr on g fu lly “ c ha rg e d” wi th a vio la tio n un de r pa rt 13 , ti tle 39 , c ha

pte r 1 7, bu t pretrial dism i s s al o f t h e indictment, which is base d upon the trial cour t making a

deter mination inv olv ingthe g e ne ra l issu e of g uil t or inn oc e nc e , is no t th a t r e me dy . F or Ap pe lle e to b e fo un d g uil ty

a s c ha rg e d, the State wo uld

be re qu ir e d to pr ov e be y on d a re a so na ble do ub t, that App e lle e kn ow ing ly possessed or c arr ied, with the i ntent to g o arme d, and whether ope nly or conc eale d, an

yfir e ar m on
a public or private school g rounds. The de fense in section 39-17-1322 r equire s proof that the f irea rm was in fa ct a ha

ndg un (as opposed to a rifle or shotg un) and that Appellee jus tif

iab ly acte d in selfde fe ns e of

ano the r i n th e c omm iss ion of a cri me wh e re in t he “ de fe nd e d p e rs on ” is a vic tim

. “Just ifiable self

-def ense” and “justifiable de fense of another ” are not defined in pa rt 13, cha pter 39, title 17, but are de fined in Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tions 39-11-611 (2007 Supp.) and 39-11- 612

. O b v io u s ly

e s ta b li s h me n t o f

th e s e d e f

e n s e s is f a c t d r iv e n

. A t t

r ia l, e v e nu n c o n tr a dicted testimony of fa cts reg ardingthe def enses c an be r ejec ted by the trier of

fac t as being void of

cre dibilit y . Acc ording ly
, I also ag ree that the lear ned trial court c ould not gr ant re lief to Appellee in this case without making a dete rmination involving fact s re g ardingthe ultimate issue of Appellee ’s g uilt or innocence . Acc ording ly , Iconcur

.

_________________________________ THOMAS T. WOODAL L , J UDGE