WPC:D Ie N.9!*$.?L^IdLeqWEi\ eDyWB|*o^ZaцuЄa?a*goL LW 1]4c8*}ϓDѶ&s( YX.WMe;h(v T#muֳb'yRO*+4Ft$ፖA[SSF?2!oZ)XR-Iu~ -tQAeE(ϫe98mb0Haa2" 5OM^RpɺT#6Ph1͸eyy4"a =Yo=:Vd5/n )٬J,pHg1?^b~##zްW0&l)s[gqA_3tMG++ZFřP3682\9BUy=ZU!>z* 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0< 0O 0P 0Q 0R 0S 0T 0U 0V 0W 0X 0X 0X 0X 0X 0X! 0X" 0X# 0X$ 0nX% 0<% B& 0C&b& D+) AB)@ )o)@ z*o* 1e+ 7v+b+++ 0+A, 0- 0- 0(q. AQ... 0. B-/ B+%0P0 0`0#0U N2 % 3M3(3N;3 1u=3 723w3^ 3434 m 4!4866;t(;(;(;>>>>>>>>>>2D\  `&Times New Roman'    0AOC .   2[+[ 0_level1   , 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level2   X 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level3    8.4` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level4    8.` ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level5    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level6    8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[+[ 0_level9    8.<` hp x (#823  ..   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl1   , 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl2   X 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl3    8.4` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl4    8.` ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl5    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl6    8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levsl9    8.<` hp x (#823  Ԁ   8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl1   , 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl2   X 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl3    8.4` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl4    8.` ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl5    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl6    8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl7   4 8. ` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl8   ` 8.` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  2[[ 0_levnl9    8.<` hp x (#823     8.` hp x (#8  <:Default ParaXXX<:Footnote Ref d($      :!..      <X4XX<XX4XX<X4  _0p x (#X0  X      1  :  XX4ThiscasewasheardaspartoftheNovember7,2002,_S.C.A.L.E.S._Ԁ( S upreme C ourt A dvancing L egal   E ducationfor S tudents)projectinCleveland,BradleyCounty,Tennessee.7oX4X'dxd#&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK& WPC i K513%)+-51d~ -( WPC i K513%)+-51d~ - 35;AGMSY_11.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.) i.- -(2$ :!..      <X4XX<XX4XX<X4  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$ :!..      <X4XX<XX4XX<X4  (2$ :!..      <X4XX<XX4XX<X4  ($/012#C<< c((2G$ :!..      <X4XX<XX4XX<X4  X4XXX4    0  )Hairline d'Single1  d#|x(r$..      <XLXX<XXLXX<XLHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular<X3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ai)v-s ,-tg U  6G$..      <X4XX<XX4XX<X4X4XXX4    2    _XX4Thedefendantwasalsochargedwithresistingarrest,recklessendangerment,andassault.Ajuryfoundthe  defendantguiltyofthesemisdemeanoroffenses,andthetrialcourtimposedasentenceofsupervisedprobationfor o thebalanceofelevenmonthsandtwentyninedays.Theseconvictionsandthesentenceimposedarenotatissuein .~ thisappeal. . 6G$..      <X4XX<XX4XX<X4X4XXX4    3    _XX4Becauseitreversedonproceduralgrounds,theCourtofCriminalAppealsdidnotaddressthesubstantive  issuepresentedbythemotion.Ratherthanremandtotheintermediatecourt,intheinterestofjudicialeconomywe o exerciseourdiscretiontoaddressthislegalissue.SeeTenn.R.App.P.13(b)("[t]heappellatecourt...mayinits .~ discretionconsiderotherissuesinorder,amongotherreasons:(1)topreventneedlesslitigation,(2)toprevent = injurytotheinterestsofthepublic,and(3)topreventprejudicetothejudicialprocess.");SeealsoStatev.Farner,66  S.W.3d188,206(Tenn.2001);Statev.Mixon,983S.W.2d661,673(Tenn.1999).    j 6G$..      <X4XX<XX4XX<X4X4XXX4    5    _XX4ThestatuteatissueinHicksissimilartothestatuteatissueinthiscaseandprovidedasfollows: Every  personwhounlawfullytakesordecoysawayanychildundertheageoftwelveyears,withintenttodetainorconceal o suchchildfromitsparents,guardianorotherperson,havingthelawfulchargeofsuchchild,shall,onconviction,be .~ imprisonedinthepenitentiary#X4X#XX4Ԁnotlessthanonenormorethanfiveyears.#X4X#  6G$..      <X4XX<XX4XX<X4X4XXX4    4    _XX4Thedefendantwasprosecutedforespeciallyaggravatedkidnappingratherthancustodialinterference  becausehisremovalorconfinementofAthenedidnotviolateanexistingcourtorderregardinghercustody,an o essentialelementoftheoffenseofcustodialinterference.Becausethedefendantwasnotsubjecttoprosecutionfor .~ custodialinterference,theprosecutorurgedthetrialcourttointerpretthedefinitionofunlawfulsoastoallowhis = prosecutionforespeciallyaggravated_kidnapping_.Interestinglyenough,hadacourtorderbeeninplace,the  defendantclearlywouldnothavebeensubjecttoprosecutionforespeciallyaggravated_kidnapping_Ԁbutwouldhave k beensubjecttoprosecutionforcustodialinterferencealone.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.3913306(c)(statingthatwhere * z theonlyaggravatingfactoristheageofthevictim,theoffenseshallbeprosecutedascustodialinterference).  9  Ї  :!..      <X4XX<XX4XX<X4  _         0p x (#X0O-XX4KOa+8<4<XXdd8  =4XXdd=Q O-INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  QRR$ATKNOXVILLE  QNovember7,2002Session >  l<` QFF!O-HeardatCleveland  :  _" !  1      _Ԉ  ]   H.` hp x (#X(#HX4XO-O-XX4 STATEOFTENNESSEEv.KEITHGOODMAN   O X4XO- AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  g CriminalCourtforAndersonCounty  M No.AOCR0098JamesB.Scott,Jr.,Judge  3  -  $%k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KE K K2 -  No.M200100036SCR11CDFiledNovember22,_2002_   -  $'k[W$~ Kp@0 dd`  KEV K KV2 -     ThethresholdissuepresentedinthisappealiswhethertheCourtofCriminalAppealserredin g holdingthatthedefendantsmotiontodismisswasnotcapableofpretrialdeterminationunder M TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure12(b)becauseitrequiresadeterminationofthegeneral 3 issueofthedefendantsguiltorinnocence.Inourview,thedefendantsmotionpresentsalegal  question!theproperinterpretationofastatute!anddoesnotrequireadeterminationofthe  defendantsguiltorinnocence.Havingdecidedthethresholdissue,wealsoareoftheopinion  thatthetrialcourtcorrectlyinterpretedthestatutewhenitheldthataparentisnotsubjectto { prosecutionforespeciallyaggravatedkidnappingunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection39 a 13305(a)(2)whentheindictmentfailstoallegethattheminorchildwasremovedorconfinedby G force,threat,orfraud.Therefore,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsisreversed. -} Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtgrantingthedefendantspretrialmotiontodismisscountoneof c theindictmentisreinstated. I   Tenn.R.App.P.11;JudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsReversed;Judgmentof !! theTrialCourtReinstated  ""   FrankF.Drowota,III,C.J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichE.RileyAnderson, w$$ AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,JaniceM.HolderandWilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined. ]% % J.ThomasMarshall,Jr.,OfficeofthePublicDefender,Clinton,Tennessee,fortheappellant, )'y"' KeithGoodman (_#(   (E$) _PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneral&Reporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;Elizabeth  B.Marney,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;JamesN.Ramsey,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;andJan  Hicks,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. |  3p x (#X(#3Q55' OPINION  d   H.` hp x (#X(#H   3p x (#X(#3 Background       H.` hp x (#X(#H  TheAndersonCountyGrandJuryreturnedamulticountindictmentchargingthe    defendant,KeithGoodman,incountonewithespeciallyaggravatedkidnappingofhisdaughter,   AtheneBaughman,inviolationofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913305(a)(2).H !  2      ׀The x  chargedoffenseisdefined,inpertinentpart,asfollows: ^  8  (a)Especiallyaggravatedkidnappingisfalseimprisonment,asdefinedin3913 *z  302:`      R XX4...#X4X  R# ,   8  (2)Wherethevictimwasundertheageofthirteen(13)atthetimeoftheremoval D orconfinement....*   UnderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913302(a) [a]personcommitstheoffenseoffalse  imprisonmentwhoknowinglyremovesorconfinesanotherunlawfullysoastointerferewiththe  othersliberty.(Emphasisadded.)Asusedinthatstatute,thetermunlawfully means,with r respecttoremovalorconfinement,onewhichis...,inthecaseofapersonwhoisundertheage X ofthirteen(13)orincompetent,accomplishedwithouttheconsentofaparent,guardianorother > personresponsibleforthegeneralsupervisionoftheminorsorincompetentswelfare. $t (Emphasisadded.)  Z  XThedefendantfiledapretrialmotiontodismisscountoneoftheindictmentpursuantto  & TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure12(b)whichprovidesthat [a]nydefense,objection,or !   requestwhichiscapableofdeterminationwithoutthetrialofthegeneralissuemayberaised "! beforetrialbymotion.Thedefendantarguedthatunderthestatutorydefinitionof unlawful, #" setoutabove,naturalparentsarenotsubjecttoprosecutionforespeciallyaggravatedkidnapping n$# underTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913305(a)(2),whenthereisnoallegationthatthe T% $ minorchildwasremovedorconfinedbyforce,threat,orfraud.Accordingtothedefendant, :&!% removalorconfinementwillneverbe unlawfulwhentheperpetratorisaparentbecauseitwill  'p"& neverbe accomplishedwithouttheconsentofaparent.Thedefendantthereforeassertedthat (V#' countoneoftheindictmentshouldbedismissedbecause,asthevictimsnaturalfather,heisnot  subjecttoprosecutionforespeciallyaggravatedkidnapping.   | TheStatefiledawrittenresponsetothedefendantsmotion.TheStatedidnotassertthat b themotionwasnotproperforpretrialresolutionunderTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure H 12(b).Instead,theStatedisagreedwiththedefendantsreadingofthestatutedefiningtheterm . ~  unlawful.AccordingtotheState,removalorconfinementisunlawfulwhenitisaccomplished  d withouttheconsentofaparent responsibleforthegeneralsupervisionoftheminors...  J welfare.TheStatearguedthat,inthiscase,thevictimsmother,notthedefendant,wasthe  0 parentresponsibleforthegeneralsupervisionoftheminorvictimswelfare.TheStatetherefore    urgedthetrialcourttodenythedefendantsmotion.       Thetrialcourtheldahearingonthemotion.Atthehearing,theprosecutionandthe x  defenseenteredthefollowingstipulationoffacts: ^   X0  1.AmberBaughmanandKeithGoodmanhaveneverbeenmarriedtoeachother.*z (#(#  ) (03A/ /""   ,E.` hp x (#X(#E  ,B+4 4` hp x (#X(#B#2  2  .3   4   AmberBaughmangavebirthtoachild,Athene,in1999.KeithGoodmanandAmber F BaughmanacknowledgedthatAtheneistheonlynaturalchildofKeithGoodmanand , AmberBaughman;andKeithGoodmanislistedonAthenesbirthcertificateasthe  father.#$݌  Ќ  ' X(#44` X(#'   ""   ,E.` hp x (#X(#E  ,B+4 4` hp x (#X(#B&2  3  .3   4   ݀Noordersorjudgmentsofanykindhavebeenenteredinanycourtregarding t paternity,custody,visitationorsupportinvolvingthechildAthene.&'݌ Z Ќ  ' X(#44` X(#'   ݀ @   Atthehearing,theStateagaindidnotassertthatthelegalissue!interpretationofthe &v statute!wasinappropriateforpretrialresolutionunderTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure  \ 12(b).Infact,theassistantdistrictattorneygeneralstated: Wereinagreementuptotheissue, B theissueisthatdefinitionofunlawful.TheStatemerelyassertedthatifthetrialcourtagreed ( withitsinterpretationofthestatute,thenthecasewasnotsubjecttodismissal.Afterreviewing  thestatutorylanguageatissue,thetrialcourtagreedwiththedefendantsinterpretationofthe  statute.Concludingthattheparentsarenotsubjecttoprosecutionundertherelevantstatutes,the   trialcourtgrantedthedefendantsmotiontodismissbaseduponthestipulationthatthe p!  defendantisAthenesnaturalfather. V"!   TheStateappealed,challengingonlythetrialcourtsinterpretationofthestatutedefining "$r# unlawful.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedthetrialcourtsjudgmentonadifferent %X $ basis,however.Findingthattheissueraisedbythedefendantsmotionwasnotcapableof %>!% resolutionwithoutadeterminationofthegeneralissueofthedefendantsguiltorinnocence,the &$"& CourtofCriminalAppealsheldthatdismissalunderTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure ' #' 12(b)wasnotproper.Thedefendantfiledanapplicationforpermissiontoappealarguingthat (#( theissueraisedisaquestionoflawwhichthetrialcourtproperlyconsideredunderRule12(b) )$) andproperlyresolvedunderthestatutorydefinitionofunlawful.Wegrantedthedefendants l*%* applicationforpermissiontoappeal.Forthefollowingreasons,thejudgmentoftheCourtof R+&+ CriminalAppealsisreversed,andthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreinstated. 8,', Ї@  TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure12     Resolutionofthethresholdissuenecessarilybeginswiththepertinentlanguageof  TennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedureRule12,whichprovidesasfollows: | 8  (b)PretrialMotions.!Anydefense,objection,orrequestwhichiscapableof H determinationwithoutthetrialofthegeneralissuemayberaisedbeforetrialby . ~ motion.Motionsmaybewrittenororalatthediscretionofthejudge. d   @=='....  J 8  (e)RulingonMotion.!Amotionmadebeforetrialshallbedeterminedbefore  0 trialunlessthecourt,forgoodcause,ordersthatitbedeferredfordetermination    atthetrialofthegeneralissueoruntilafterverdict,butnosuchdetermination    shallbedeferredifapartysrighttoappealisadverselyaffected.Wherefactual   issuesareinvolvedindeterminingamotion,thecourtshallstateitsessential x  findingsontherecord.^    @VV'... D  8  (g)Records.!Averbatimrecordshallbemadeofallproceedingsatthehearing, *z  includingsuchfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawasaremadeorally.`     Generallythen,undertheplainlanguageofRule12(b)and(e),onceapretrialmotionis , made,atrialcourtmustdecidethemotionbeforetrialifitis capableofdeterminationwithout  thetrialofthegeneralissue.Tenn.R.Crim.P.12(b);seealsoStatev.Vickers,970S.W.2d  444,447(Tenn.1998).Thisruleavoidstheunnecessaryinterruptionandinefficiencycausedby  removingthejuryfromthecourtroomtoconducthearingsonmotionsfiledduringthecourseof t trial,andtheruleensurestherightoftheStatetoappealanadverserulingofthetrialcourt Z withoutimplicatingdoublejeopardyconsiderations.Statev.Randolph,692S.W.2d37,40 @ (Tenn.Crim.App.)perm.app.denied(Tenn.1985).Motionsordinarilyarecapableof &v determinationbeforetrialiftheyraisequestionsoflawratherthanquestionsoffact.SeeUnited  \ Statesv.Jones,542F.2d661,664(6thCir.1976)(discussingtheidenticalFederalRuleof B CriminalProcedure12).However,subsections(e)and(g)ofRule12clearlyenvisionthatatrial ( courtmaymakefindingsoffactnecessarytodecidethequestionsoflawpresentedbyapretrial  motionsolongasthefactualfindingsarenotintertwinedwiththegeneralissueofguiltor  innocence.SeeVickers,970S.W.2dat447;Jones,542F.2dat664.Wherethefactualfindings   necessarytoresolvethemotionareintertwinedwiththegeneralissue,arulingmustbedeferred p!  untiltrialsince,incriminalcases,theresimplyisnopretrialprocedureakintosummary V"! judgmentforadjudicatingquestionsoffactinvolvingthegeneralissueofguiltorinnocence. <#" SeeVickers,970S.W.2dat447;Statev.Burrow,769S.W.2d510,512(Tenn.Crim.App. "$r# 1989). %X $   Applyingtheseguidingprinciples,weholdthatthedefendantspretrialmotionpresented &$"& aquestionoflawwhichwas"capableofdeterminationwithoutthetrialofthegeneralissue." ' #' Resolutionofthedefendantsmotionrequiredthetrialcourttointerpretastatuteandapplythe (#( statutetoundisputedfacts.Thesearequestionsoflawwhichdonotinvolvefactualfindings )$) aboutthegeneralissueofguiltorinnocence.SeeStatev.Walls,62S.W.3d119,121(Tenn. l*%* 2001)( IssuesofstatutoryconstructionarequestionsoflawthatthisCourtreviewsdenovo R+&+ withoutapresumptionofcorrectness.);Statev.Daniel,12S.W.3d420,423(Tenn.2000) 8,', (Wheretheissueinvolvesanapplicationoflawtoundisputedfacts,aquestionoflawis  presentedwhichwillbesubjecttodenovoreview.).Thestipulatedfactsdidnotdescribeand  werenotintertwinedwiththefactualevidenceofthedefendantsconductatthetimeofthe | allegedoffense.Theywererelevantonlytothelegalquestionpresentedbythedefendants b motion,nottothegeneralissueofguiltorinnocence.TheStatedidnotobjecttothetrialcourts H useoftheprocedure,andasindicated,explicitlyagreedthatthemotionpresentedaquestionof . ~ lawcapableofdeterminationunderTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure12.  d   AlsosupportingourconclusionthattheprocedurewasappropriateunderRule12isState  0 v.Randolph,676S.W2.d943(Tenn.1984).InRandolph,thedefendantmovedtodismissthe    indictmentcharginghimwithseconddegreemurder,arguingthat,asamatteroflaw,asellerof    heroincouldnotbeconvictedofhomicidewherethecustomerdiedfromaselfadministered   overdose.Afterholdinganevidentiaryhearingandconsideringevidencethatwasintroducedby x  agreement,thetrialcourtgrantedthedefendantsmotion.Onappeal,thisCourtdisagreedwith ^  thetrialcourtsresolutionofthesubstantiveissueandheldthatasellerofheroinissubjectto D  prosecutionforhomicide.Nonetheless,thisCourtdidnotdenouncetheprocedurebywhichthe *z  issuewasraisedandresolved.Significantly,thetrialcourtinthiscaseemployedaprocedure ` almostidenticaltothatusedandimplicitlyapprovedbythisCourtinRandolph.Accordingly, F thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealswhichfoundthatthedefendantsmotionwasnot , capableofpretrialdeterminationunderRule12isreversed.Havingsodecided,wewillnext  determinewhetherthetrialcourtproperlyresolvedthesubstantivelegalissuepresentedbythe  motion.I !  3          @M M  EspeciallyAggravatedKidnappingByParent  &v   Theindictmentinthiscasechargedthatthedefendant did...unlawfullyandknowingly  \ removeandconfineATHENEBAUGHMAN,apersonunderthirteen(13)yearsofage,soasto B interferesubstantiallywithATHENEBAUGHMANsliberty,inviolationofTCA3913305. ( Therefore,theindictmentchargedespeciallyaggravatedkidnappinginaccordancewith  TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913305(a)(2)!! falseimprisonment,asdefinedin39  13302...[w]herethevictimwasundertheageofthirteen(13)atthetimeoftheremovalor   confinement.Falseimprisonmentiscommittedwhenaperson knowinglyremovesorconfines p!  anotherunlawfullysoastointerferesubstantiallywiththeothersliberty.Tenn.CodeAnn. V"! 3913302(a).Finally,theword [u]nlawfulmeans,withrespecttoremovalorconfinement,one <#" whichisaccomplishedbyforce,threatorfraud,orinthecaseofapersonwhoisundertheage "$r# ofthirteen(13)orincompetent,accomplishedwithouttheconsentofaparent,guardianorother %X $  personresponsibleforthegeneralsupervisionoftheminorsorincompetentswelfare.Tenn. %>!% CodeAnn.3913301(2)(emphasisadded).Thedisputeinthiscaserevolvesaroundthe  emphasizedportionofthestatutorydefinitionofthewordunlawful.     Thedefendantmaintainsthatundertheplainlanguageofthisstatutorydefinitionaparent b canneverbeprosecutedforremovingorconfininghisorherminorchildunlesstheremovalor H confinementisaccomplishedbyforce,threat,orfraud.Sincetheindictmentinthiscasedidnot . ~ chargeforce,threat,orfraud,thedefendantcontendsthatthetrialcourtproperlydismissedthe  d indictment.Thedefendantsaysthatbecausethestatutespecifies aparentanddidnotusethe  J term custodialparent,hisstatusas aparentissufficienttoprecludethisprosecution.Had  0 theGeneralAssemblyintendedtorequiretheconsentofthe custodialparent,thedefendant    aversthattermwouldhavebeenincludedinthestatute.Whilethedefendantcontendsthatthe    meaningofthestatuteisclearonitsface,hefindsfurthersupportforhispositioninthefactthat   theGeneralAssemblyclassifiedcustodialinterferenceasaClassEfelony,punishablebyoneto x  sixyearsimprisonmentandamaximumfineof$3,000,whereasespeciallyaggravated ^  kidnappingisaClassAfelony,punishablebyfifteentosixtyyearsimprisonmentanda D  maximumfineof$50,000.ThedefendantclaimsthatitisillogicaltoassumetheLegislature *z  wouldintendtopunishaparentwhocommitscustodialinterferenceby kidnappingachildin ` violationofacourtordersomuchlessseverelythanaparentwhocommitsthesameactwhenno F courtorderisinplace.Therefore,thedefendantmaintainsthatboththeplainlanguageofthe , statuteandalogicalreadingofthisstatutewithrelatedstatutoryprovisionssupportthetrial  courtsholdingthatparentsarenotsubjecttoprosecutionforespeciallyaggravatedkidnapping  underTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913305(a)(2)whenthereisnoallegationthatthe  minorchildwasremovedorconfinedbyforce,threat,orfraud. t   AlthoughtheStatesbriefsfiledinthisCourtdidnotaddressthisissue,theStateargued @ intheCourtofCriminalAppealsthattheplainlanguageofthestatutedoesnotsupportthetrial &v courtsdecision.AccordingtotheState,thephrase responsibleforthegeneralsupervisionof  \ theminors...welfareinthedefinitionofunlawful,modifiesthewords parent,guardian,or B otherperson.Underthecircumstancesofthiscase,theStatearguesthatAthenesmotherwas ( theparentresponsibleforthegeneralsupervisionofherwelfare.Insupportofthisargument,  theStatepointsoutthatthedefendantwasnotmarriedtoAthenesmotherandthattherewasno  courtorderrelatingtolegitimationorcustody.Underthesecircumstances,theStatecontends   thatTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection362304controls.Thisstatutedeclares: [a]bsentan p!  orderofcustodytothecontrary,custodyofachildbornoutofwedlockiswiththemother.The V"! StatemaintainsthatnotwithstandingthedefendantsstatusasAthenesnaturalfather,hewasnot <#" theparent responsibleforthegeneralsupervisionoftheminorswelfarebecausehedidnot "$r# havecustodyundersection362304.Therefore,theStateclaimsthatthedefendantissubjectto %X $ prosecutionforespeciallyaggravatedkidnappingbecauseheremovedorconfinedAthene %>!% withouttheconsentofhermother,whotheStateclaimsistheparent responsibleforthegeneral &$"& supervisionoftheminorswelfarebecauseshehadcustodypursuanttoSection362304. ' #'   Aspreviouslyindicated,theconstructionofastatuteisaquestionoflawwhichappellate )$) courtsreviewdenovo,withnopresumptionofcorrectness.Walls,62S.W.3dat121.In l*%* construingstatutes,ourdutyistoeffectuatelegislativeintent.Statev.Alford,970S.W.2d944, R+&+ 946(Tenn.1998);Carterv.State,952S.W.2d417,419(Tenn.1997);Wilsonv.Johnson 8,', KOa K K  County,879S.W.2d807,809(Tenn.1994).Legislativeintentistobeascertainedprimarily  fromthenaturalandordinarymeaningofthelanguageused,withoutaforcedorsubtle  constructionthatwouldlimitorextendthemeaningofthelanguage.Alford,970S.W.2dat946; | Carter,952S.W.2dat419.Courtsarerestrictedtothenaturalandordinarymeaningofthe b languageusedbythelegislatureinthestatute,unlessanambiguityexistswhichrequiresfurther H inquirytoascertainlegislativeintent.Browderv.Morris,975S.W.2d308,311(Tenn.1998). . ~ Thelanguageemployedmustbeconsideredinthecontextoftheentirestatute,andthe  d componentpartsofastatuteshouldbeconstrued,ifpossible,consistentlyandreasonably.  J Alford,970S.W.2dat946;Wilson,879S.W.2dat809.Furthermore,wearetoassumethatthe  0 legislatureusedeachwordinthestatutepurposely,andthattheuseofthesewordsisintendedto    conveyameaningandserveapurpose.Browder,975S.W.2dat311.Wherethelanguageof    thestatuteisclearandplainandfullyexpressesthelegislature'sintent,resorttoauxiliaryrules   ofconstructionisunnecessary,andweneedonlyenforcethestatute.Id. x    Thestatuteatissueinthiscaseisclearlyandplainlywritten.Removalorconfinementis D  not unlawfulifitisaccomplishedwiththeconsentof aparent.Thestatutedoesnotusethe *z  term custodialparent.Theconsentof aparentissufficient.TheStatesargumentthatthe ` phrase responsibleforthegeneralsupervisionoftheminorsorincompetentswelfare F modifiesthewords aparent,guardianorotherpersonisunpersuasive.Consideringthe , languageincontextandassumingthattheGeneralAssemblyusedeachwordinthestatute  purposelywiththeintentofconveyingameaningandservingapurpose,weareoftheopinion  thatthephraseuponwhichtheStatereliesmodifiesonlythewords otherperson.Thisphrase  servestodescribepersons,inadditiontoparentsandguardians,whomayconsenttotheremoval t orconfinementofaminororincompetent.Applyingthephraseinthemannersuggestedbythe Z Statewouldrendertheterms parentand guardiansuperfluousandunnecessary. @   Asthedefendantpointsout,theStatesinterpretationofthestatutealsowouldsubjecta  \ parenttoaClassAfelonyprosecutionunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913305(a)(2) B forconductthatisordinarilyprosecutedascustodialinterference,aClassEfelonyoraClassA ( misdemeanor,ifthechildisreturnedvoluntarilybythedefendant.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.39  13306(d).Asthedefendantpointsout,theconductatissueisthesame!removingor  detainingaminorchild.Thedifferenceisthatcustodialinterferencerequiresthattheremovalor   detentionbeinviolationofacourtorderregardingthechildscustody.Eventhoughour p!  decisionisbasedprimarilyupontheplainlanguageofthestatute,weagreewiththedefendant V"! thatitisagainstlogictoconcludethattheGeneralAssemblyintendedtoimposealesssevere <#" punishmentwhenthistypeofconductviolatesacourtorderthanthepunishmentimposedwhen "$r# nocourtorderisviolated.O !  4      ׀Therefore,weconcludethatthedefendantisnotsubjectto %X $ prosecutionforespeciallyaggravatedkidnappingunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection39  13305(a)(2).Theindictmentinthiscasefailstoallegethatthedefendantremovedorconfined  theminorchildbyforce,threat,orfraud,andtheremovalorconfinementwasnotaccomplished |  withouttheconsentofaparentbecausethedefendantistheminorchildsfather. b   WenotethatourholdinginthisregardisconsistentwithpriorTennesseelaw.For . ~ example,inHicksv.State,12S.W.2d385(Tenn.1928),thisCourtheldthatafatherwasnot  d subjecttoprosecutionforkidnappingwhenhetookhischildrenfromhisexwifewithout  J knowledgethatshehadobtainedadivorcewhilehewasinprisonandhadbeenawardedcustody  0 ofthechildreninthedivorceproceeding.Insoholding,thisCourtstatedthatthefathers claim    totheircustody,intheabsenceofadecreeexcludingitcouldbeassertedwithoutresorttolegal    process,andsuchassertionwouldnotrenderhimguiltyofacrime.Hicks,12S.W.2dat386.Lo !  5      ׀   Ourholdingonthisissuealsoisconsistentwiththemajorityviewfromotherjurisdictions.See x  Armendarizv.People,711P.2d1268(Colo.1986);Johnsonv.State,637So.2d3(Fla.Ct.App. ^  1994);Peoplev.Algarin,558N.E.2d457(Ill.App.Ct.1990);seegenerallyWilliamB.Johnson, D  Annotation,KidnappingorRelatedOffensebyTakingorRemovingofChildbyorunder *z  AuthorityofParentorOneinLocoParentis,20A.L.R.4th823,827(1983). `   Therefore,whilewecertainlydonotcondonethedefendantsconduct,thetrialcourt , correctlyheldthat,astheminorchildsfather,thedefendantisnotsubjecttoprosecutionfor  especiallyaggravatedkidnappingunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection3913305(a)(2)in  theabsenceofanallegationthattheminorchildwasremovedorconfinedbyforce,threat,or  fraud.Noristhedefendantsubjecttocustodialinterferencesinceheviolatednocourtorder t whenheremovedorconfinedtheminorchild.ThisCourtdoesnotsubstituteitsownpolicy Z judgmentsforthoseofthelegislature.Gleavesv.CheckerCabTransitCorp.,Inc.,15S.W.3d @ 799,803(Tenn.2000).Instead,thisCourtmustpresumethatthelegislaturesaysinastatute &v whatitmeansandmeansinastatutewhatitsays.Id.Itisnotforthecourtstoalteroramenda  \ statute.Id.TheGeneralAssembly,notthisCourt,isempoweredtoamendthecriminalstatutes B atissueinthiscase. (  @%Conclusion    E.` hp x (#X(#E  Forthereasonsexplainedherein,weconcludethatthetrialcourtproperlyconsideredthe p!  defendantspretrialmotionunderTennesseeRuleofCriminalProcedure12andproperly V"! grantedthemotiontodismiss.Astheminorchildsfather,thedefendantisnotsubjectto <#" prosecutionforespeciallyaggravatedkidnappingunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection39 "$r# 13305(a)(2)becausetheindictmentdoesnotallegethattheminorchildwasremovedor %X $ confinedbyforce,threat,orfraud.Accordingly,thejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals %>!% isreversed,andthejudgmentofthetrialcourtisreinstated.Costsofthisappealaretaxedtothe &$"& StateofTennessee,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.     x  (#(#K(# ' #' Ї  0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#_______________________________________H(#(#   0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#FRANKF.DROWOTA,III,CHIEFJUSTICE