Opinion ID: 2141839
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dictionaries and cases from other jurisdictions

Text: ¶ 42 When interpreting a word or phrase in a statute, it often proves useful to look at dictionary definitions or sometimes even case law from other states. However, in the case at hand, these tools lead to equivocal results rather than support a broad or narrow interpretation of other bodily member. ¶ 43 The dictionary definition of member is quite extensive. [17] While [m]any words have multiple dictionary definitions[, and] the applicable definition depends upon the context in which the word is used, Kalal, 271 Wis.2d 633, ¶ 49, 681 N.W.2d 110, the dictionaries yield equivocal results in this case even when the context of other bodily member is known. ¶ 44 The second edition of Webster's New International Dictionary defines member as 1.a Archaic. A bodily part or organ; esp., a limb. b Obs[olete], [18] A private part. . . . 7. Anat[omy], A part or organ of the animal body; esp., a limb or other separable part. [19] The second edition of The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines member as 3. a part or organ of an animal body; a limb, as a leg, arm, or wing. . . . 5. the penis. [20] The first edition of the same dictionary provides synonym explanations for the particular entry. It reads, Member, Limb refer to an integral part of a larger body. Member is the general term applied to any integral part or vital organ of an organized animal body . . . The nose, tongue, and arms are members of the body. Limb, which once, like Member, referred to any organ of the body, is now restricted to the legs and arms. . . .  [21] ¶ 45 The Oxford English Dictionary contains twelve entries, each with explanations, for the word member. 1.a. A part or organ of the body; chiefly, a limb or other separable portion (as opposed to the trunk [22] ). 1.b. spec. (after L): = `privy member.' This dictionary provides examples of the word's usage as it corresponds to different periods in time. Usage of the word member under entry 1.a., which defined member as a part or organ of the body, provides in part: 1495 Act. II Hen. VII, c. 3 § 3 Any other offence wherefor any persone shall lose life or member. . . . 1611 Bible Deut. xxiii. I Hee that hath his priuie member cut off. 1660 F. Brooke tr. Le Blanc's Trav. 61 They tye a cloth only to hide their privie members. . . . 1823 J.F. Cooper Pioneers v. (1869) 24/2 There was something noble in the rounded outlines of his head and brow. The very air and manner with which the member haughtily maintained itself [etc]. The Oxford English Dictionary Vol. IX, 590 (2d ed. 2000). ¶ 46 Thus, the multiple dictionary definitions give conflicting answers as to whether the forehead is a member. On the one hand, member seems to encompass organs. The brain is an organ and impairment of its function can most certainly affect the functioning of the tongue, eyes, ears, lips, nose, and limbs. In that sense, including the brain within the definition of other bodily member makes sense as the brain directly affects the functioning of the other parts of the body. ¶ 47 Another definition of member could lead one to conclude that other bodily member refers only to male and female reproductive organs, deriving the term from the word privie or private. However, Webster's dictionary identifies this definition as obsolete. In addition, restricting member to mean only private parts is doubtful because the legislature has had no problem delineating the private parts of humans in other areas of the statutes. During the 1955 criminal code revision, the legislature did not use the word member in other statutes as a means to identify male or female reproductive organs. See, e.g., Sexual perversion, Wis. Stat. § 944.17 (1955) (utilizing the word sex organ); Lewd and lascivious behavior, Wis. Stat. § 944.20 (1955) (utilizing the word sex organ). Subsequently, the legislature has used penis or vagina in Wisconsin Statutes. See, e.g., Words and phrases defined, Wis. Stat. § 939.22(19) (1979-80) (`Intimate parts' means the breast, buttock, anus, groin, scrotum, penis, vagina or pubic mound of a human being.). ¶ 48 Yet another dictionary definition indicates member could be anything besides the trunk and another includes all integral parts of the body. Lastly, the dictionaries also define member as any part of the body. Thus, the dictionaries lead to equivocal results as to whether the forehead is a member. Moreover, there are very few parts of the body not included in at least one of these many definitions. Perhaps this indicates that member, or other bodily member, is meant to include every part of the entire body. ¶ 49 One may also turn to other states to guide statutory interpretation, which can be especially useful when the relevant statute has been widely used and dates back to the 1400s. However, a review of the case law with regard to mayhem is also equivocal as to whether the forehead constitutes a member or other bodily member. In Foster v. People, the court concluded that the victim's skull fracture was not mayhem. Foster v. People, 1 Cow. Cr. Rep. 508, 8 (N.Y.1872). The Court of Appeals of New York stated, [a]n injury to the head or skull is not specified by Hawkins or Blackstone as mayhem. . . . Id. at 5 (emphasis omitted). In contrast, however, the court stated, the breaking of the skull was considered mayhem under the definition by Lord Coke. Id. Lord Coke stated: Mayhem, he says, signifieth a corporal hurt, whereby a man looseth a member by reason whereof he is less able to fight, as by putting out his foretooth, breaking his skull, striking off his arm, hand or finger, cutting off his leg or foot, or whereby he looseth the use of any of his said members. (Coke Litt., 288 a.) Id. (emphasis added). [23] ¶ 50 Thus, even historically, no consensus existed as to whether a skull fracture or injury to the forehead could constitute mayhem. The New York court was persuaded by the conclusion that a blow to the head does not indicate intent to maim but rather intent to kill. Id. at 8. The court stated, [a]nd while it was for the jury to determine with what intent the blow was inflicted, we cannot, without doing violence to common sense, say that the prisoner may have intended to break the skull of Putnam without producing death. Id. ¶ 51 However, a much earlier English case from A Complete Collection of State Trials is inconsistent with the New York court's decision. In 1722, at the trial of John Woodburne and Arundel Coke, the defendants tried to escape a mayhem conviction by asserting that they did not intend to maim when they brutally cut up the face of the victim with a hedge-bill; rather, they intended to kill him. Trial of John Woodburne and Arundel Coke 16 A Complete Collection of State Trials 54, 89 (1812). The court responded with disapproval: And that this was with an intent to disfigure, must be submitted upon the fact and the evidence. A man uses a weapon fit to maim and to disfigure, he cuts another on the face and does disfigure him, shall he afterwards be at liberty to say, it was not his intent so to do? How dangerous that would be, is obvious to every one; this act would then be easily eluded. . . . The Woodburne court's reasoning is persuasive in that it is possible one could intend to maim as opposed to kill when the action consists of attacking a victim's forehead. ¶ 52 In 1908, an Ohio court concluded that striking a person on the head could constitute mayhem although the court did not explicitly conclude that the forehead was a member. O'Brien v. State, 21 Ohio Cir. Dec. 33, 4 (1908). An 18-inch gas pipe wrapped with heavy paper was used to strike another over the head. Id. at 1. The victim fell to his knees and pulled out a revolver, shooting and killing one of the assailants. Id. The court concluded: So a blow upon the head made under the circumstances shown in this case may be presumed to have been made with intent to cause the loss of the use of some important member of the body. Indeed, it is well settled by medical authority that a violent blow upon the head not fracturing the skull frequently does cause the paralysis of an arm or leg. American Text Book of Surgery, Principles and Practice of Surgery by De Costa. Id. at 4. ¶ 53 While it is not entirely clear whether the Ohio court would have considered a blow upon the head, which only disabled the brain or skull, as disabling a member, it is clear, however, that a blow to the head constituted intent to disable because it often causes the paralysis of the victim's limbs. Thus, a blow to the head may constitute mayhem. ¶ 54 Accordingly, a historical analysis of the case law is not particularly helpful. Some authorities conclude that an injury to the foreheada skull fracturecould constitute mayhem. However, the courts' reasoning varies, such as an injury to the head could affect other members and thus constitute mayhem because a limb was disabled. However, other authorities seem to conclude that the forehead is not a member and thus injuries to the forehead, like a skull fracture, cannot constitute mayhem. ¶ 55 Even modern mayhem cases differ as to whether the head or forehead is a member. For example, California courts have concluded that the head qualifies as a member. [24] In People v. Newble, the court concluded that in light of the rationale the preservation of the natural completeness and normal appearance of the human face and bodythere is no tenable reason for distinguishing prominent facial wounds to a nose, ear or lip, from comparable wounds which happen to miss one of those areas of the head specifically mentioned in section 203. Newble, 120 Cal.App.3d 444, 451, 174 Cal.Rptr. 637 (1981). Such a trivial distinction, the court concluded, would be undesirable and absurd. Id. Therefore, it concluded that a facial laceration from the ear to the chin could constitute mayhem. [25] ¶ 56 On the other hand, a 1956 decision from a Pennsylvania court concluded that the face does not qualify as a limb or member. Commonwealth v. Patterson, 8 Pa. D. & C.2d 227, 228 (1956). The defendant bit the victim's lower left side of the face. Id. The court concluded that the face did not qualify as a member under Pennsylvania's mayhem statute, which reads: Whoever . . . unlawfully . . . cuts off or disables any limb or member of another. . . . Id. Other states, such as Massachusetts have upheld mayhem convictions for blows to the head, but those states had modified their mayhem statutes. As a result, it was not necessary for those states to decide whether the head or forehead qualified as a member or other bodily member. [26] ¶ 57 While the dictionary definitions or the guidance from other states produces equivocal results, the manner in which the legislature uses the phrase other bodily member indicates that the legislature intended that phrase to be construed broadly, and thus we have given effect to that intent.