Court Opinion

ID: 9661834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:52:14.07831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:34.212807
License: Public Domain

OPINION
HENRY, Justice.
This petition for post-conviction relief raises a question of first impression, i. e., within the meaning of Section 37-234(a)(l), *382T.C.A., does a juvenile attain age fifteen on his birthday or on the day before his birthday. The Court of Criminal Appeals held to the latter view and we granted certiorari to examine the question.
I.
The Court of Criminal Appeals treated the issue in the abstract, basing its opinion wholly on the ancient common law rule which required the computation of one’s age by including the day of birth with the result that, as a matter of law, one reaches any given age on the earliest moment of the day preceding an anniversary of birth.1 This is the prevailing view in this country. That it does not coincide with the average person’s fixed belief that he attains any given age on his birthday is of no legal significance; however, the prevalence of this view accounts for this controversy and tends to complicate a relatively simple question.
Petitioner relies on Section 1-302, T.C.A. This section provides that “[t]he time within which any act provided by law is to be done, shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday, and then it shall also be excluded.”
This Court held in Needham v. Moore, 200 Tenn. 445, 453, 292 S.W.2d 720 (1956), that this is a “statutory enactment of the common law rule.” However, in the cited A.L.R. Annotation, the common law method of age computation is said to be an exception to the terminal day formula. Be this as it may, our research satisfies us that at the common law one reaches any given birthday on the first moment of the day preceding the anniversary of the date of his birth.
Tennessee is a common law state. The effect of Article XI, Section 1 (Article X, Section 2, Constitution of 1796), of the Constitution of Tennessee was that we adopted the common law of England “as it stood at (1776) and before the separation of the colonies . . (it) being derived from North Carolina, out of which state the State of Tennessee was carved.” Dunn v. Palermo, 522 S.W.2d 679, 682 (Tenn.1975). That law prevails unless and until changed by statute. Monk v. Ramsey, 223 Tenn. 247, 443 S.W.2d 653 (1969).
Thus, it is that the common law rule obtains in Tennessee.
In our view, Section 1-302, T.C.A., merely provides a method for the computation of time “within which any act provided by law is to be done.” It does not purport to change the common law method of age computation. The logic of the common law rule is unassailable. A person is in existence on the day of his birth. On the first anniversary he or she has lived one year and one day.
In Turnbull v. Bonkowski, 419 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1969), the Court, in construing an Alaska statute tolling the statute of limitation until claimant attained the age of nineteen years, held that he reached the age of nineteen one day before his nineteenth birthday. The Court had before it a terminal day statute identical with Section 1— 302, T.C.A., which it held not to abrogate the common law rule governing when one reached a given age.
The conventional or prevailing attitude and belief evidenced by birthday commemorations and celebrations to the contrary notwithstanding, legally one attains any given age one day before his birthday.2 We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals in this holding as an abstract legal proposition.
This, however, does not end the inquiry. It reckons without consideration of the legislative intent upon which the adoption of Section 37-234, T.C.A., was based. The pertinent part of that section provides for a transfer of the child to circuit court to be dealt with as an adult if the *383child “was fifteen (15) or more years of age at the time of the alleged conduct if the offense charged included murder . . .”3
The legislative intent is not apparent from this phraseology; however, reference to the remainder of the section makes it clear that the enactment speaks in terms of birthdays.4 Section (d) contains the phrase “after reaching eighteen (18) years of age” which is similar in legal import to the phrase “was fifteen (15) or more years of age.” Section (g) speaks of holding the child in an institution “until his eighteenth (18) birthday”; of transferring him to an adult institution on his “eighteenth (18) birthday” and of the expiration of his term “prior to the eighteenth (18) birthday.” It is evident that the Legislature had in mind birthdays and ages in the conventional, usual and ordinary sense of these words. Of course, the Legislature could fix any age limits it considered appropriate.
It results that defendant was not “fifteen (15) or more years of age”, at the time of the murder. The transfer was erroneous and improper and the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Its judgment was a nullity and subject to direct and collateral attack.
The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is reversed and this action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Warren County with directions to further remand to the Juvenile Court for disposition.
Reversed and Remanded.
BROCK, C. J., COOPER and HARBI-SON, JJ., concur.
FONES, J., dissents.

. See Annot., Age Computation, 5 A.L.R.2d 1143 (1949).

. This does not result in continued acceleration of attained age with an accompanying advancement annually. On each birth date the computation starts again.

. Defendant was indicted, tried and convicted on a charge of murder in the first degree.

. The crime in this case was committed one day preceding the petitioner’s 15th birthday.