Court Opinion

ID: 9588588
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:36:00.345753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:25.910434
License: Public Domain

Justice Martin
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The majority’s characterization of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4(a)(l)(m) (1983) as “replacing” only N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4(b) (1981) is grossly misleading. When the new list of aggravating factors was enacted by the legislature in 1981, both old factor “a” (concerning infliction of bodily injury) and old factor “b” (concerning property loss) were simultaneously repealed. 1981 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 179. If we are to interpret new factor “m” as having “replaced” anything, it is both old factor “a” and old factor “b.” As such, it is appropriate to construe factor “m” as referring to the infliction of loss to either property or to bodily health.
I also cannot agree that the fact that the text of factor “m” as found in Senate Bill 72 was changed between the 4 February 1981 draft and the later draft eventually introduced supports the construction of the statute urged by the majority. The version of 4 February 1981 is so ungrammatical and contains such an obvious typographical error that it is clear that factor “m” was simply not typed in the way the drafters intended. It stands to reason that the change appearing in the later draft merely corrected this clerical error rather than adding anything substantially to the meaning of the text.
The current statute may be read grammatically as follows:
[A] The offense involved [either]
[1] an attempted or actual taking of property of great monetary value or
[2] damage causing great monetary loss, or
*638[B] the offense involved an unusually large quantity of contraband.
Analysis of the first part of the statute reveals that — “replacing” old factors “a” and “b” — the legislature was concerned with the taking of valuable property in one clause and damage generally in another. The obvious intent was to provide that if a defendant deprived someone of something valuable, whether by removal or injury, this fact should be considered an aggravating factor during sentencing for the offense causing the deprivation. If a criminal defendant’s acts injure a person, depriving him of his own health and causing him to incur great monetary loss, the defendant’s “offense involved . . . damage causing great monetary loss.”
This interpretation requires no liberality of statutory construction. It is in accord with the legislative history of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4(a) and with the presumption we must apply that the General Assembly relies on commonsense definitions of words when drafting statutes. “When the words of a statute have not acquired a technical meaning, they must be construed in accordance with their common and ordinary meaning unless a definite meaning is apparent or definitely indicated by the context.” State v. Lee, 277 N.C. 242, 243, 176 S.E. 2d 772, 773 (1970). Accord State v. Ludlum, 303 N.C. 666, 281 S.E. 2d 159 (1981) (courts may consult dictionaries to ascertain ordinary meaning of words in statutes). Black’s Law Dictionary 351 (5th ed. 1979) defines “damage” as “[l]oss, injury, or deterioration, caused by the negligence, design, or accident of one person to another, in respect of the latter’s person or property ... By damage we understand every loss or diminution of what is a man’s own, occasioned by the fault of another. The harm, detriment or loss sustained by reason of an injury.” (Emphases ours.) Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 323 (1984) lists as its primary definition of “damage”: “1: loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation.” (Emphasis ours.) See Cherry v. Gilliam, 195 N.C. 233, 235, 141 S.E. 594, 595 (1928) (“The word ‘damages’ is defined as compensation which the law awards for an injury — ‘injury’ meaning a wrongful act which causes loss or harm to another.”). Because “damage” includes injury to a person, the phrase “or damage causing great monetary loss” in N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4(a)(l)(m) must include monetary loss resulting from personal injuries.
*639I would also point out that the issue of whether “the General Assembly intended to tie this factor to remote effects of the defendant’s crime which are dependent upon a variety of factors over which the defendant had no control and about which he had no knowledge” is not before us in the instant case. The expensive medical care needed by defendant’s ex-wife after defendant shot her from close range in the back and arm was a direct, not a “remote,” consequence of defendant’s criminal acts. If a person can be held liable for money damages in a civil action for all of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his negligent acts, then surely a criminal defendant should be held to have taken the risk of being given a greater sentence if his intentional acts directly involve “damage causing great monetary loss.” See Lane v. R. R., 192 N.C. 287, 290, 134 S.E. 855, 857 (1926) (“The broad general rule, with respect to compensatory damages, which are given as the pecuniary equivalent for the injury done, is that the wrongdoer is liable to the person injured for all the natural and direct or proximate consequences of his wrongful act or omission . ... In the case of torts . . . [s]uch liability extends not only to injuries which are directly and immediately caused by his act, but also to such consequential injuries, as according to the common experience of men, are likely to result from such act.”). In the instant case, it strains credulity to think that when defendant shot his ex-wife he was unaware that the damage he caused to the victim would result in expensive medical care.
For the above reasons I vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Justices Mitchell and Browning join in this dissenting opinion.