ÿWPCØ ý‘jÁÃZÄ'ã–JŠÌÀþûõáa$­Òj‡Ê&¤'›iÆÉaÕVS5Û üpÔUá⩆‘M•䣳AŠ_ŽW…HNü ž„ÛéÏò$ã^7ØOº=ÙakG‰¼i§^?L8¡•®sj¢7º”£HøèÄgý\ObFͦÌS¿6·C&² Ý5g<°J¿)¼á§É¤ñc¿Ueˤ쉅(Ì)KKž‰ÝË—?jC䇇NKèBÙrŒ4ÛV%b#QrĦ?xõ±ÌU2€‘ÇE4)¾ØiÖºIs£{1ÏúMå5Jd‹Î RA&,ý¥%zÒOqÏ É”‹:€­?FdѱÇq,#[L¶Yì^Kãh¹ýr7oºYߨd¿Ç¤pü¢„ÙÍL0¿´s-ù;”¶@^«Ñ*‘+ižŠ!W,ÃÕjö‹Ýîg•`:ÕõBú ÝÞ¼!ßLj4ðnÌÇ)Ñtt%‘Å>ØþùpÝ>4'>dCëj”iÈj›­wR˜$xÕ«ê~¿•Á8Óí–]µù%*3*ìdžÅ}­û|èLJ6³=àVWgµËhÎÖëaü,hGNçU÷l¼øzbký e¡lQ†Kìb#Á\ % N# 0ˆ% UN­ û UN zQ ÒË z Ò ^ é wõ Æù Æ¿ Æ…ÆK4N%'6E8 m:: 0DQ8••••••••••••••••••••bÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ 0ëÕÕÕÕ BÀÀ 0¤Ý D3 D-´ 0Káá AS,Æ 0¤E 0Dé A«-˜HP LaserJet 4,ü,,,,,ü0»(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular (ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt-{:)â Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5q\;'8̤3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó .Ý ƒRð¨$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÙŒò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔCompare€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€12„4„101€(personal€interest€of€certain€public€officials€prohibited)€and€Tenn.€CodeÐ ° ÐAnn.€ðð€39„16„402€(official€misconduct).€€- ù-(|G2ð¨$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¤d»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÙŒò»»Ô d(|3Á$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¤d»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Á$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¤d»»dd8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€¤d»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€¼¤d»»»ÔÑ8€©ÓXXdð»»d8Ñà@HHìàIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@””$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEˆÐ È ÐÓ  Óà @ àà @` àMarch€28,€2000€SessionÐ à0 ÐÔ‡X©ÓX»¼¤dÔÌò òÔ#†¼¤d»XX©ÓÒ#ÔòòÔ€X©ÓX.¼¤dÔSTATE€OF€TENNESSEEóó€v.€òòóóBILL€WHITEHEADó óÐ è8 ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òInterlocutory€Appeal€from€the€Criminal€Court€for€Greene€CountyÐ È  Ðà@@øøìàNo.€98CR005€€€€€€James€E.€Beckner,€JudgeÐ ¸  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<‡` AßÐ ˆØ  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E1999„02423„CCA„R3„CDÐ ‡×  ÐSeptember€26,€Ô_Ô2000Ô_ÔÐ wÇ  ÐßA€V) °°` dE<f` AßÐ g·  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€defendant,€Bill€Whitehead,€was€charged€by€presentment€with€thirteen€counts€of€feloniousÐ f¶  Ðconflict€of€interest€in€violation€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114,€the€conflict€of€interest€provisionÐ V¦ Ðcontained€in€the€County€Purchasing€Law€of€1957.€€Through€various€motions€to€dismiss,€theÐ F– Ðdefendant€challenged€the€constitutionality€of€the€statute,€asserting€that€the€statute€violates€state€andÐ 6† Ðfederal€principles€of€equal€protection,€challenging€the€statute€as€void€for€vagueness,€and€contendingÐ &v Ðthat€the€County€Purchasing€Law€of€1957€constitutes€an€inappropriate€delegation€of€legislative€power.€Ð f ÐThe€trial€court€denied€the€defendant's€motions€but€granted€an€interlocutory€appeal€on€each€of€theÐ V Ðconstitutional€issues.€€It€is€our€view€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114,€while€not€unconstitutionallyÐ öF Ðvague,€is€violative€of€equal€protection€guaranties.€€Accordingly,€the€trial€court's€order€denying€reliefÐ æ6 Ðis€reversed€and€the€presentment€is€dismissed.€€Having€determined€that€the€defendant€is€entitled€toÐ Ö& Ðrelief,€it€is€not€necessary€to€address€the€question€of€whether€the€County€Purchasing€Law€of€1957Ð Æ Ðqualifies€as€an€unconstitutional€delegation€of€legislative€power.Ð ¶ ÐÓƒÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€9;€Order€of€the€Trial€Court€Reversed.ó óÐ –æ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓGary€R.€Wade,€P.J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòJoseph€M.€Tiptonóó€and€òòNormaÐ v Æ ÐMcGee€Ogle,€JJ.óó,€joined.Ð f!¶  ÐÌJ.€Ronnie€Greer,€Greeneville,€Tennessee,€attorney€for€the€appellant,€Bill€Whitehead.Ð F#–" ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€&€Reporter,€Elizabeth€B.€Marney,€Assistant€Attorney€General,Ð &%v $ ÐC.€Berkeley€Bell,€Jr.,€District€Attorney€General,€for€the€appellee,€State€of€Tennessee.Ð &f!% ÐÌÓo ÓÌò òÓ  Óà@55'ìàOPINIONó óˆÐ æ(6$( ÐÌà  àThe€defendant,€a€former€Greene€County€Commissioner,€was€charged€with€13€instances€ofÐ Æ*&* Ðhaving€an€indirect€financial€or€beneficial€interest€in€a€contract€or€purchase€order€between€GreeneÐ ¶+'+ ÐCounty€and€either€Summers„Taylor,€Inc.,€or€Vulcan€Materials€Company.€€The€charges€relate€to€theÐ ¦,ö', Ðperiod€between€1990€and€1998,€during€which€the€defendant€was€a€member€of€the€county€legislativeÐ –-æ(-ý Ðbody.€€Initially,€the€defendant,€who€was€70€years€of€age€at€the€time€of€the€presentment,€filed€a€requestÐ ° Ðfor€pretrial€diversion.€€Because€the€District€Attorney€General€concluded€that€the€defendant€"tookÐ  ð Ðactive€steps€to€[conceal]€his€conflict€by€knowingly€and€repeatedly€falsifying€his€financial€disclosureÐ à Ðrecords€by€denying€he€received€any€benefit€or€income€other€than€Social€Security,"€he€denied€theÐ €Ð Ðrequest.€€The€District€Attorney€determined€that€the€defendant€received€"tens€of€thousands€of€dollars"Ð pÀ Ðthrough€the€association€his€wife€had€with€Malone€Brothers,€the€successors€of€which€were€Summers„Ð ` ° ÐTaylor,€Inc.,€and€Vulcan€Materials€Company.€€The€state€contended€that€the€defendant€and€his€wifeÐ P   Ðdeposited€in€their€joint€bank€account€over€$33,000€from€companies€doing€business€with€the€countyÐ @  Ðduring€the€period€covered€by€the€presentment,€which€was€limited€by€the€statute€of€limitations.€€OfÐ 0 € Ðequal€concern€to€the€state€in€the€denial€of€diversion€was€that€the€defendant€had€failed€to€offerÐ  p  Ðrestitution.€€Ð `  ÐÌà  àLater,€the€defendant€challenged€the€constitutionality€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€TheÐ ð@  Ðtrial€court€overruled€the€defendant's€motions€to€dismiss,€but€"because€of€the€substantial€nature€of€theÐ à0  Ðconstitutional€issues€raised,"€continued€the€case€and€authorized€an€interlocutory€appeal.€€Tenn.€R.Ð Ð  ÐApp.€P.€9.€€This€court€granted€the€request.€€Ð À ÐÌà  àInitially,€our€legislature€has€authorized€four€alternatives€for€the€regulation€of€countyÐ  ð Ðpurchasing€activities.€€One€such€alternative€is€regulation€by€private€act.€€The€other€three€alternativesÐ à Ðare€found€in€the€Code:€the€County€Purchasing€Law€of€1957,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€5„14„101€throughÐ €Ð Ð5„14„116€(1998)€("the€1957€Act");€the€County€Financial€Management€System€of€1981,€Tenn.€CodeÐ pÀ ÐAnn.€ðððð€5„21„101€through€5„21„129€(1998)€("the€1981€Act");€and€the€County€Purchasing€Law€ofÐ `° Ð1983,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€4„14„201€through€5„14„206€(1998)€("the€1983€Act").€€The€1957€Act€isÐ P  Ða€"local€option"€statute€which€becomes€effective€in€any€given€county€only€after€being€adopted€by€theÐ @ Ðrequired€vote€of€the€county€legislative€body€or€"upon€the€contingency€of€the€majority€casting€votesÐ 0€ Ðin€any€election€held€for€this€purpose€approving€the€law."€€òòSeeóóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„102€(1998).€Ð  p ÐThat€Greene€County€adopted€the€1957€Act€is€not€in€dispute.€€Ð ` ÐÌà  àThe€1957€Act€contains€a€conflict€of€interest€provision€which€makes€it€a€Class€D€felony€forÐ ð@ Ðcounty€legislative€body€members,€among€others,€to€"be€financially€interested,€or€have€any€personalÐ à0 Ðbeneficial€interest,€either€directly€or€indirectly,€in€any€contract€or€purchase€order€for€any€supplies,Ð Ð  Ðmaterials,€equipment€or€contractual€services€used€by€or€furnished€to€any€department€or€agency€of€theÐ À! Ðcounty€government."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114.€€The€1981€Act€makes€it€a€Class€C€misdemeanorÐ °"  Ðfor€any€county€legislative€body€member,€among€others,€to€be€financially€or€personally€andÐ  #ð! Ðbeneficially€interested,€"either€directly€or€indirectly,€in€the€purchase€of€any€supplies,€materials€orÐ $à" Ðequipment€for€the€county."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„21„121,€„125€(1998).€€The€1983€Act,€which€appliesÐ €%Ð # Ðby€default€to€all€counties€that€have€not€adopted€either€the€1957€or€the€1981€Act€and€are€not€governed,Ð p&À!$ Ðwith€regard€to€purchasing,€by€a€private€act,€contains€no€provision€proscribing€such€a€conflict€ofÐ `'°"% Ðinterest.€€Ð P( #& Їà  àThe€1957€Act€is€in€force€in€14€counties€in€Tennessee,€including€Greene€County.€€The€1981Ð ° ÐAct€is€in€force€in€14€counties.€€The€remainder€of€our€counties€are€subject€to€either€the€1983€Act€orÐ  ð Ðprivate€acts.Ð à ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€contends€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114€is€unconstitutional€for€threeÐ pÀ Ðreasons:€(1)€that€the€statute€violates€the€equal€protection€provisions€of€both€the€federal€and€stateÐ ` ° Ðconstitutions;€(2)€that€the€statute€is€impermissibly€vague;€and€(3)€that€the€1957€Act€is€anÐ P   Ðunconstitutional€delegation€of€legislative€authority.€€While€upholding€the€statute€and€denying€theÐ @  Ðdefendant's€motions€to€dismiss,€the€trial€court€expressed€reservations€about€the€constitutionality€ofÐ 0 € Ðthe€1957€Act,€"although€not€such€reservations€that€would€cause€[him]€to€find€that€it€wasÐ  p  Ðunconstitutional."€€Ð `  ÐÌÔ‡X² XXX©ÓÔà@ÍÍ*ìàIÔ#†X©ÓX XX²Ì"#ÔÔ‡X² XXX©ÓԈРð@  ÐÌÔ#†X©ÓX XX²!##Ôà  àInitially,€the€defendant€asserts€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114€violates€the€guarantees€ofÐ È  Ðequal€protection€found€in€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions.€€He€contends€thatÐ ¸ Ðclassification€as€a€Class€E€felony€of€a€county€official's€having€a€"financial€interest"€in€a€countyÐ ¨ø Ðcontract€only€in€those€counties€adopting€the€1957€Act€does€not€pass€even€rational€basis€scrutiny,€theÐ ˜è Ðtest€most€favorable€to€the€position€of€the€state.€€The€state€contends€that€there€is€no€equal€protectionÐ ˆØ Ðviolation€because€the€Act€treats€different€geographic€areas€of€the€state,€rather€than€different€personsÐ xÈ Ðor€groups,€disparately.€€It€argues€that€no€fundamental€right€is€involved€and€that€the€Act€does€notÐ h¸ Ðsingle€out€members€of€a€protected€class.€We€agree€with€the€defendant.Ð X¨ ÐÌà  àEqual€protection€of€the€laws€is€guaranteed€by€two€separate€provisions€of€the€TennesseeÐ 8ˆ ÐConstitution:€€Article€I,€Section€8,€and€Article€XI,€Section€8,€which€provide€as€follows:Ð (x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àò òNo€man€to€be€disturbed€but€by€law.ó ó€ð!ð€That€no€man€shall€be€takenÐ X Ðor€imprisoned,€or€disseized€of€his€freehold,€liberties€or€privileges,€orÐ øH Ðoutlawed,€or€exiled,€or€in€any€manner€destroyed€or€deprived€of€hisÐ è8 Ðlife,€liberty€or€property,€but€by€the€judgment€of€his€peers€or€the€lawÐ Ø( Ðof€the€land.ÐÈ ` x` x ÐÌò òà8  àà8` Ð Ð àGeneral€laws€only€to€be€passed.ó ó€ð!ð€The€Legislature€shall€have€noÐ ¨"ø  Ðpower€to€suspend€any€general€law€for€the€benefit€of€any€particularÐ ˜#è! Ðindividual,€nor€to€pass€any€law€for€the€benefit€of€individualsÐ ˆ$Ø" Ðinconsistent€with€the€general€laws€of€the€land;€nor€to€pass€any€lawÐ x%È # Ðgranting€to€any€individual€or€individuals,€rights€privileges,€immunitie,Ð h&¸!$ Ð[immunities]€or€exemptions€other€than€such€as€may€be,€by€the€sameÐ X'¨"% Ðlaw€extended€to€any€member€of€the€community,€who€may€be€able€toÐ H(˜#& Ðbring€himself€within€the€provisions€of€such€law.€.€.€.Ð8)ˆ$'` x` x ÐÌAdditionally,€the€United€States€Constitution€explicitly€prohibits€a€state€from€denying€its€citizensÐ +h&) Ðequal€protection:Ð ,X'* Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAll€persons€born€or€naturalized€in€the€United€States,€and€subject€to€theÐ ° Ðjurisdiction€thereof,€are€citizens€of€the€United€States€and€of€the€stateÐ  ð Ðwherein€they€reside.€€òòNo€state€shallóó€make€or€enforce€any€law€whichÐ à Ðshall€abridge€the€privileges€or€immunities€of€citizens€of€the€UnitedÐ €Ð ÐStates;€nor€shall€any€state€deprive€any€person€of€life,€liberty,€orÐ pÀ Ðproperty,€without€due€process€of€law;€nor€òòdeny€to€any€person€withinÐ ` ° Ðits€jurisdiction€the€equal€protection€of€the€laws.óóÐP  ` x` x ÐÌU.S.€Const.€amend.€XIV,€ðð€1€(emphasis€added).€€Our€supreme€court€has€determined€that€the€equalÐ 0 € Ðprotection€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€and€United€States€Constitutions,€although€not€identical€inÐ  p  Ðcontent,€provide€"essentially€the€same€protection."€€òòTennessee€Small€School€Sys.€v.€McWherteróó,€851Ð `  ÐS.W.2d€139,€152€(Tenn.€1993).Ð P  ÐÌà  à"Equal€protection€analysis€requires€strict€construction€of€a€legislative€classification€[the€strictÐ à0  Ðscrutiny€test]€only€when€the€classification€interferes€with€the€exercise€of€a€'fundamental€right'€(e.g.,Ð Ð  Ðright€to€vote,€right€of€privacy),€or€operates€to€the€peculiar€disadvantage€of€a€'suspect€class'€(e.g.,Ð À Ðalienage€or€race)."€€òòState€v.€Testeróó,€879€S.W.2d€823,€828€(Tenn.€1994).€€A€right€is€fundamental€onlyÐ ° Ðwhen€it€is€protected,€either€implicitly€or€explicitly,€by€a€constitutional€provision.€€òòId.óó€€FundamentalÐ  ð Ðrights€include€voting,€privacy,€travel,€and€the€freedoms€of€speech€and€association.€€òòKing„BradwellÐ à ÐPartnership€v.€Johnson€Controls,€Inc.óó,€865€S.W.2d€18,€21€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993).€€SuspectÐ €Ð Ðclassifications€include€race,€alienage,€national€origin,€and€gender.€€òòId.óóÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àThere€is€no€fundamental€right€to€a€financial€or€"personal€beneficial"€interest€in€countyÐ P  Ðcontracts.€€Moreover,€because€the€1957€Act€is€effective€only€in€those€counties€which€adopt€it€eitherÐ @ Ðthrough€their€governing€bodies€or€popular€elections,€the€class€of€citizens€to€which€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ð 0€ Ððð€5„14„114€applies€is€not€discrete€and,€in€consequence,€is€not€"suspect."€€In€other€words,€GreeneÐ  p ÐCounty€officials€are€not€"saddled€with€such€disabilities,€or€subjected€to€such€a€history€of€purposefulÐ ` Ðunequal€treatment,€or€relegated€to€such€a€position€of€political€powerlessness€as€to€commendÐ P Ðextraordinary€protection€from€the€majoritarian€process."€€òòSan€Antonio€Indep.€Sch.€Dist.€v.€Rodriguezóó,Ð ð@ Ð411€U.S.€1,€27€(1973).€€The€defendant's€equal€protection€challenge,€therefore,€must€be€determinedÐ à0 Ðunder€the€rational€basis€test,€which€has€been€described€by€our€supreme€court€as€follows:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€concept€of€equal€protection€espoused€by€the€federal€and€our€stateÐ °"  Ðconstitutions€guarantees€that€"all€persons€similarly€circumstancedÐ  #ð! Ðshall€be€treated€alike."€€Conversely,€things€which€are€different€in€factÐ $à" Ðor€opinion€are€not€required€by€either€constitution€to€be€treated€theÐ €%Ð # Ðsame.€€"The€initial€discretion€to€determine€what€is€'different'€and€whatÐ p&À!$ Ðis€'the€same'€resides€in€the€legislatures€of€the€States,"€and€legislaturesÐ `'°"% Ðare€given€considerable€latitude€in€determining€what€groups€areÐ P( #& Ðdifferent€and€what€groups€are€the€same.€€In€most€instances,€theÐ @)$' Ðjudicial€inquiry€into€the€legislative€choice€is€limited€to€whether€theÐ 0*€%( Ðclassifications€have€a€reasonable€relationship€to€a€legitimate€stateÐ  +p&) Ðinterest.Ð,`'*` x` x ЇòòDoe€v.€Norrisóó,€751€S.W.2d€834,€841€(Tenn.€1988)€(citations€omitted).€€Under€the€rational€basis€test,Ð ° Ða€classification€will€be€upheld€upon€a€finding€of€"some€reasonable€basis"€therefor€or€"if€any€state€ofÐ  ð Ðfacts€may€reasonably€be€conceived€to€justify€it."€€òòMcWherteróó,€851€S.W.2d€at€153€(quoting€òòHarrisonÐ à Ðv.€Schraderóó,€569€S.W.2d€822,€825„26€(Tenn.€1978)).€€Because€the€defendant€is€challenging€Tenn.Ð €Ð ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114,€the€burden€is€on€him€to€demonstrate€that€the€legislative€classification€isÐ pÀ Ðunreasonable.€€òòTesteróó,€879€S.W.2d€at€829.€€Whether€a€classification€is€reasonable€depends€upon€theÐ ` ° Ðfacts€in€each€case.€€òòMcWherteróó,€851€S.W.2d€at€153.€€Ð P   ÐÌà  àIn€òòSandford€v.€Pearsonóó,€190€Tenn.€652,€231€S.W.2d€336€(1950),€the€plaintiffs€challenged€theÐ 0 € Ðconstitutionality€of€Chapter€756€of€the€Private€Acts€of€1949,€which€authorized€Haywood€County€toÐ  p  Ðconduct€a€popular€election€on€the€issue€of€the€sale,€possession,€or€transportation€of€beer.€€UponÐ `  Ðreview,€our€supreme€court€upheld€the€plaintiffs'€challenge:Ð P  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àAlthough€no€mention€is€made€of€it€in€the€caption,€section€3,€of€theÐ à0  ÐPrivate€Act€before€us€here,€defines€a€crime€which,€if€the€Act€be€put€inÐ Ð  Ðoperation,€would€be€"partial"€to€Haywood€County.ÐÀ` x` x Ðà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ ° Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThis€clearly€violates€Article€11,€Section€8,€of€the€Constitution,€.€.€.Ð  ð Ðand€the€Act€contains€no€"saving€or€rescue"€clause€from€which€weÐ à Ðwould€be€justified€in€an€inference€that€without€this€objectionableÐ €Ð Ðpenalty,€the€Legislature€would€nevertheless,€have€passed€the€Act.€Ð pÀ ÐThe€effect€of€this€provision€is€to€permit€the€citizens€of€HaywoodÐ `° ÐCounty,€by€a€majority€vote,€to€enact€a€criminal€statute.€€TheÐ P  Ðenactment€of€criminal€laws€is€a€function€exclusively€vested€in€theÐ @ ÐLegislature€by€the€Constitution€.€.€.€.Ð0€` x` x Ðà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ  p Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIt€remains€to€consider€whether,€under€Article€I,€Section€8,€and€ArticleÐ ` Ð11,€Section€8,€which€taken€together,€represent€the€State's€expressionÐ P Ðof€the€XIV€Amendment€of€the€Federal€Constitution,€the€classificationÐ ð@ Ðof€Haywood€County€with€regard€to€the€sale€of€beer€as€being€uniqueÐ à0 Ðand€distinguishable€from€the€same€legislative€problem€as€it€presentsÐ Ð  Ðitself€in€the€other€94€counties€of€the€State,€is€a€reasonable€or€anÐ À! Ðarbitrary€classification.€.€.€.а" ` x` x Ðà@bbìà*€€€€€€€€€€*€€€€€€€€€€*ˆÐ  #ð! Ðà8  àà8` Ð Ð àGiving€our€obligation€of€judicial€notice€its€most€elastic€exercise,€weÐ $à" Ðcan€imagine€no€basis€on€which€to€distinguish€any€aspect€of€the€beerÐ €%Ð # Ðproblem€in€Haywood€County,€from€the€same€problem€in€the€otherÐ p&À!$ Ðcounties€of€the€same€or€similar€size€throughout€the€State.€€In€the€ActÐ `'°"% Ðpassed,€the€Legislature€makes€no€attempt€to€justify€the€classification,Ð P( #& Ðand€that€justification€was€a€legislative,€not€a€judicial€function.Ð@)$'` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àUnder€the€foregoing€authorities€for€the€reasons€stated,€we€are€forcedÐ  +p&) Ðto€hold€that€Chapter€756€of€the€Private€Acts€of€1949,€isÐ ,`'* Ðunconstitutional€as€violating€Article€I,€Section€8,€and€Article€11,Ð ° ÐSection€8,€of€the€State€Constitution.Рð` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€339€(citations€omitted).€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àIn€òòState€v.€Testeróó,€the€defendant€challenged€a€statute€which€allowed€persons€convicted€ofÐ ` ° Ðsecond€offense€driving€under€the€influence€in€Davidson,€Moore,€or€Shelby€Counties€to€serve€theirÐ P   Ðmandatory€45„day€jail€sentences€in€work€release€programs.€€879€S.W.2d€at€825.€€In€all€other€counties,Ð @  Ðthe€law€required€a€minimum€mandatory€jail€sentence€of€45€days.€€òòId.óó€The€Washington€County€trialÐ 0 € Ðcourt€determined€that€the€statute€violated€the€equal€protection€provisions€of€the€state€and€federalÐ  p  Ðconstitutions€insofar€as€its€applicability€was€limited€to€three€counties.€€òòId.óó€€The€trial€court€elided€theÐ `  Ðportion€of€the€statute€limiting€its€application€to€only€three€counties€and,€applying€the€work€releaseÐ P  Ðprogram€eligibility€to€Washington€County,€ordered€the€defendant€to€spend€50€days€in€a€work€releaseÐ ð@  Ðprogram€rather€than€serve€the€mandatory€jail€sentence€required€by€the€general€law.€€òòId.óó€at€827.€€OurÐ à0  Ðsupreme€court€ruled€that€the€entire€statute€was€unconstitutional,€holding€that€there€was€no€rationalÐ Ð  Ðbasis€for€the€statute's€limited€applicability€to€only€three€counties,€and€required€that€the€defendant€beÐ À Ðsubjected€to€the€mandatory€minimum€jail€sentence:€€Ð ° ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à"[T]he€classification€must€not€be€mere€arbitrary€selection.€€It€mustÐ à Ðhave€some€basis€which€bears€a€natural€and€reasonable€relation€to€theÐ €Ð Ðobject€sought€to€be€accomplished,€and€there€must€be€some€good€andÐ pÀ Ðvalid€reason€why€the€particular€individual€or€class€upon€whom€theÐ `° Ðbenefit€is€conferred,€or€who€are€subject€to€the€burden€imposed,€notÐ P  Ðgiven€to€or€imposed€upon€others€should€be€so€preferred€orÐ @ Ðdiscriminated€against.€€òòThere€must€be€reasonable€and€substantialÐ 0€ Ðdifferences€in€the€situation€and€circumstances€of€the€persons€placedÐ  p Ðin€different€classes€which€disclose€the€propriety€and€necessity€of€theÐ ` Ðclassification.óó€.€.€.€€òòThe€fundamental€rule€is€that€all€classification€mustÐ P Ðbe€based€upon€substantial€distinctions€which€make€one€class€reallyÐ ð@ Ðdifferent€from€another;€and€the€characteristics€which€form€the€basisÐ à0 Ðof€the€classification€must€be€germane€to€the€purpose€of€the€law.óó€.€.€."ÐÐ ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€this€case,€the€"rational€basis"€advanced€by€the€State€in€support€ofÐ °"  Ðthe€challenged€provision€is€that€the€jail€facilities€in€Shelby€CountyÐ  #ð! Ðand€in€counties€with€a€metropolitan€form€of€government€(DavidsonÐ $à" Ðand€Moore)€are€overcrowded€to€the€extent€that€there€is€a€real€andÐ €%Ð # Ðsubstantial€distinction€between€those€counties€and€the€other€92Ð p&À!$ Ðcounties€in€the€State.€€The€State€concludes,€therefore,€that€theÐ `'°"% Ðclassification€is€reasonable.€€We€cannot€agree.ÐP( #&` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àIn€our€view,€this€argument€ignores€the€evidence€in€this€record,€whichÐ 0*€%( Ðâ âindicates€that€òòWashington€Countyóó€has€experienced€serious€jailÐ  +p&) Ðovercrowding€that€was€directly€caused€by€the€mandatory€incarcerationÐ ° Ðof€òòsecond€time€DUI€offenders.óó€.€.€.Рð` x` x Ðâ âÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àThe€State€makes€an€appealing€policy€argument€that€the€legislativeÐ €Ð Ðintent€was€to€keep€second€offenders€employed,€to€help€defray€the€costÐ pÀ Ðin€counties,€to€support€families€involving€minor€children,€and€to€allowÐ ` ° Ðoffenders€to€meet€their€financial€obligations.€€These€goals,€howeverÐ P   Ðadmirable,€apply€equally€to€all€second€time€offenders€and€provide€noÐ @  Ðrational€basis€for€distinguishing€between€the€three€counties€to€whichÐ 0 € Ðthe€act€is€limited€and€all€the€other€counties€of€the€State.Ð p ` x` x ÐÌòòId.óó€at€829€(alteration€in€original)€(quoting€òòState€v.€Nashville,€Chattanooga€&€St€Louis€Railway€Co.óó,Ð P  Ð124€Tenn.€1,€135€S.W.€773€(1910)).Ð ð@  ÐÌà  àIn€our€view,€the€legislature's€classification€of€a€county€official's€conflict€of€interest€withÐ Ð  Ðregard€to€a€county€contract€as€a€Class€D€felony€in€only€those€counties€adopting€the€CountyÐ À ÐPurchasing€Law€of€1957€is€purely€arbitrary€and€cannot€withstand€the€defendant's€equal€protectionÐ ° Ðchallenge.€€Assuming€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114€was€intended€to€deter€graft€and€corruption,Ð  ð Ðwe€cannot€discern€any€reasonable€basis€for€limiting€its€application€to€certain€counties.€€The€state€doesÐ à Ðnot€suggest€a€rational€basis€for€the€classification.€€Nor€can€we€determine€any€reasonable€basis€forÐ €Ð Ðmaking€a€conflict€of€interest€a€Class€D€felony€in€some€counties,€as€the€1957€Act€does,€a€Class€CÐ pÀ Ðmisdemeanor€in€other€counties,€as€the€1981€Act€does,€and€no€crime€at€all€in€yet€other€counties,€as€theÐ `° Ð1983€Act€does.€Ð P  ÐÌà@ªª)ìàIIˆÐ 0€ ÐÌà  àNext,€the€defendant€contends€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114€is€void€for€vagueness.€Ð ` ÐAlthough€we€have€already€determined€the€statute€to€be€void€on€other€grounds,€we€neverthelessÐ P Ðaddress€this€issue€and€hold€that€the€statute€is€not€unconstitutionally€vague.€€Ð ð@ ÐÌà  àIt€is€a€basic€principle€of€due€process€that€an€enactment€is€void€for€vagueness€if€its€prohibitionsÐ Ð  Ðare€not€clearly€defined.€€òòGrayned€v.€City€of€Rockfordóó,€408€U.S.€104€(1972).€€The€fair€warningÐ À! Ðrequirement€embodied€in€the€due€process€clause€prohibits€the€states€from€holding€an€individualÐ °"  Ðcriminally€responsible€for€conduct€which€he€could€not€have€reasonably€understood€to€be€proscribed.€Ð  #ð! ÐòòUnited€States€v.€Harrissóó,€347€U.S.€612€(1954).€€Due€process€requires€that€the€law€give€sufficientÐ $à" Ðwarning€so€that€people€may€avoid€conduct€which€is€forbidden.€€òòRose€v.€Lockeóó,€423€U.S.€48€(1975).€Ð €%Ð # ÐThe€words€of€a€statute€are€to€be€taken€in€their€natural€and€ordinary€sense€without€a€forcedÐ p&À!$ Ðconstruction€to€limit€or€extend€their€meaning.€€òòEllenburg€v.€Stateóó,€215€Tenn.€153,€384€S.W.2d€29,Ð `'°"% Ð30€(1964).€€Initially,€trial€courts€are€charged€with€upholding€the€constitutionality€of€statutes€whereÐ P( #& Ðpossible.€€òòDykes€v.€Hamilton€Countyóó,€183€Tenn.€71,€191€S.W.2d€155,€159€(1945);€òòState€v.€Joyneróó,Ð @)$' Ð759€S.W.2d€422,€425€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1987).€€The€constitutional€test€for€vagueness€is€whether€aÐ 0*€%( Ðstatute's€prohibitions€are€not€clearly€defined€and€are€thus€susceptible€to€different€interpretations€asÐ  +p&) Ðto€what€conduct€the€statute€actually€proscribes.€€òòState€v.€Forbesóó,€918€S.W.2d€431,€447„48€(Tenn.Ð ,`'* ÐCrim.€App.€1995);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGraynedóó,€408€U.S.€at€108;€òòBaggett€v.€Bullittóó,€377€U.S.€360,€367€(1964).€Ð ° ÐÌà  àTennessee€Code€Annotated€Section€5„14„114€provides€as€follows:Ð à ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(a)€€Neither€the€county€purchasing€agent,€nor€members€of€the€countyÐ pÀ Ðpurchasing€commission,€nor€members€of€the€county€legislative€body,Ð ` ° Ðnor€other€officials€of€the€county,€shall€be€financially€interested,€orÐ P   Ðhave€any€personal€beneficial€interest,€either€directly€or€indirectly,€inÐ @  Ðany€contract€or€purchase€order€for€any€supplies,€materials,€equipmentÐ 0 € Ðor€contractual€services€used€by€or€furnished€to€any€department€orÐ  p  Ðagency€of€the€county€government.€€Ð` ` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(b)€€Nor€shall€any€such€persons€accept€or€receive,€directly€orÐ ð@  Ðindirectly,€from€any€person,€firm€or€corporation€to€which€any€contractÐ à0  Ðor€purchase€order€may€be€awarded,€by€rebate,€gift€or€otherwise,€anyÐ Ð  Ðmoney€or€anything€of€value€whatsoever,€or€any€promise,€obligationÐ À Ðor€contract€for€future€reward€or€compensation.а` x` x ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð à(c)€€A€violation€of€this€section€is€a€Class€D€felony.Ðà` x` x ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€complains€that€the€terms€"beneficial"€and€"indirect"€are€not€defined€by€theÐ pÀ Ð1957€Act.€€The€defendant€is€correct.€€Nevertheless,€those€terms€are€not€so€vague€that€persons€ofÐ `° Ðreasonable€intelligence€cannot€understand€their€meaning.€€"Beneficial"€is€defined€in€òòBlack's€LawÐ P  ÐDictionaryóó€as€meaning€"[f]avorable;€producing€benefits."€€òòBlack's€Law€Dictionaryóó€149€(7òòthóó€ed.€1999).€Ð @ ÐIt€is€defined€in€òòWebster'sóó€as€"conferring€benefits:€contributing€to€a€good€end:€helpful,€advantageous."€Ð 0€ ÐòòWebster's€Third€New€International€Dictionaryóó,€203€(1993).€€"Indirect"€is€not€defined€in€òòBlack'sóó,€butÐ  p Ðis€defined€in€òòWebster'sóó€as€"not€direct:€.€.€.€(1):€deviating€from€a€direct€line€or€course:€not€proceedingÐ ` Ðstraight€from€one€point€to€another:€proceeding€obliquely€or€circuitously:€roundabout."€€òòId.óó€at€1151.€Ð P ÐThus,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114€prohibits€a€county€official€from€having€any€personally€favorable€Ð ð@ Ðinterest€in€a€county€contract,€regardless€of€whether€that€interest€is€direct€or€circuitous.€€While€theÐ à0 Ðstatute€prohibits€a€broad€range€of€conduct€by€county€officials,€it€is€not€so€vague€that€the€prohibitedÐ Ð  Ðconduct€cannot€be€ascertained.€€Ð À! ÐÌÌà@‰‰)ìàIIIˆÐ $à" ÐÌà  àThe€defendant€is€entitled€to€relief€on€the€grounds€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114€violatesÐ p&À!$ Ðequal€protection€guaranties.€€It€is€unnecessary,€therefore,€to€consider€whether€the€1957€Act€shouldÐ `'°"% Ðbe€declared€void€in€its€entirety€as€an€unlawful€delegation€of€legislative€authority.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Const.Ð P( #& Ðart.€II,€ðð€3;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHaynes€v.€City€of€Pigeon€Forgeóó,€883€S.W.2d€619,€620€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994)Ð @)$' Ð("[U]nder€Tennessee€law,€our€courts€do€not€decide€constitutional€questions€unless€the€issue'sÐ 0*€%( Ðresolution€is€absolutely€necessary€for€determination€of€the€case€and€the€rights€of€the€parties.").Ð  +p&) ÐÐ ,`'* Їà@hh%ìàCONCLUSIONˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àBecause€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€5„14„114€is€violative€of€Article€I,€Section€8,€of€the€TennesseeÐ à ÐConstitution,€€the€order€of€the€trial€court€denying€the€defendant's€motions€to€dismiss€must€beÐ €Ð Ðreversed.€€The€presentment€against€the€defendant€is€dismissed.Ð pÀ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð 0 € Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àGARY€R.€WADE,€PRESIDING€JUDGE