State v. Flemming
19 S.W.3d 195 (2000)
Rule of Law:
An individual's own body parts, such as fists and feet, do not constitute 'deadly weapons' under Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-106(a)(5)(B) for the purpose of elevating a simple offense to an aggravated offense.
Facts:
- On June 1, 1995, Eric Flemming and three other men chased Derrick Lamont Smith.
- The men beat Smith with their fists and kicked him until he fell to the ground, and continued the assault after he fell.
- A witness, Juanita Smith, observed two of the other men, Terrance Robinson and Antonio Batey, reach into the victim's pockets and remove items.
- Juanita Smith did not observe Flemming take any property from the victim.
- Antonio Batey, a co-participant, testified that Flemming kicked the victim and beat him with his fists.
- Batey also testified that he saw Flemming reach into the victim's pockets but did not see him take anything.
- After the attack, the victim was found to be missing his rings, watch, and money from a paycheck he had cashed the previous day.
Procedural Posture:
- Eric Flemming was indicted for especially aggravated robbery of Derrick Lamont Smith.
- At trial, the State argued that Flemming was guilty because he used his fists and feet as deadly weapons.
- A jury in the trial court found Flemming guilty of especially aggravated robbery.
- The trial court sentenced Flemming to eighteen years confinement.
- Flemming, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
- The Court of Criminal Appeals, finding for Flemming, reversed the conviction, holding that fists and feet are not deadly weapons under the statute.
- The State of Tennessee, as appellant, was granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are fists and feet 'deadly weapons' within the meaning of Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-106(a)(5)(B)?
Opinions:
Majority - Barker, J.
No. Fists and feet are not 'deadly weapons' under the Tennessee statute. Interpreting the word 'anything' in the statute to include body parts would lead to an absurd result by merging simple and aggravated offenses, which contradicts legislative intent. The legislature created a tiered system of offenses (e.g., simple assault vs. aggravated assault) where the use of a deadly weapon elevates the crime and its corresponding penalty. If fists were considered deadly weapons, nearly every simple assault would automatically become an aggravated assault, as it is nearly impossible to commit an assault without 'displaying' one's fists. This would nullify the distinction between the offenses. The court reasoned that the enhanced penalty for using a deadly weapon is intended to apply when an offender uses an external object or instrument, not their own body.
Analysis:
This decision provides a significant clarification of Tennessee's 'deadly weapon' statute, establishing a clear boundary between the use of external instruments and the use of one's own body in committing an offense. It prevents a broad prosecutorial interpretation that could eliminate the distinction between simple and aggravated crimes, particularly in cases of assault and robbery. By refusing to classify fists and feet as deadly weapons, the court preserves the legislative intent behind the tiered penalty structure for violent crimes. This holding ensures that charges for aggravated offenses are reserved for crimes involving an external object capable of causing serious harm, rather than being automatically applied to any physical altercation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State v. Flemming (2000)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"