## Facts

- Steve Plowman was indicted in Estill Circuit Court for second-degree arson for allegedly starting a fire intending to destroy or damage a bulldozer owned by another person.
- Second-degree arson requires intent to destroy or damage a “building.”
- Kentucky’s statutory definition of “building” includes, beyond its ordinary meaning, certain listed conveyances and the residual category “other structure or vehicle.”
- Plowman moved to dismiss, arguing a bulldozer is not a “vehicle” within the statutory definition of “building,” so burning it cannot constitute second-degree arson.
- The circuit court dismissed the indictment after concluding a bulldozer is not a statutory “vehicle.”
- The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, relying in part on statutory purpose and the canon of ejusdem generis to read “other … vehicle” narrowly.
- The Supreme Court of Kentucky granted discretionary review to resolve whether the arson statutes cover a bulldozer.

## Issues

1. Whether a bulldozer qualifies as a “vehicle” within the statutory definition of “building,” permitting prosecution for second-degree arson for intentionally burning it.
2. Whether the residual phrase “other structure or vehicle” should be narrowed by ejusdem generis to exclude heavy construction equipment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kentucky reversed.
- The Court held that a bulldozer is a “vehicle” for purposes of the arson statutes and thus falls within the statutory definition of “building.”
- The Court rejected the narrower reading applied by the lower courts.
- The Court remanded with directions to reinstate the second-degree arson indictment and for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed independently on appeal; courts must apply statutory text according to its plain meaning and legislative intent.
- Where a definitional statute lists varied conveyances and then adds a broad residual phrase (“other … vehicle”), the category “vehicle” may be read expansively rather than limited to road-legal or passenger conveyances.
- Legislative amendments expanding statutory coverage may evidence intent to broaden the scope of criminal liability.
- Ejusdem generis does not control when applying it would defeat the apparent breadth of the statutory text and the legislature’s demonstrated intent to expand coverage.
- Arson statutes protect against intentional destruction of valuable property by fire; interpretation consistent with that protective aim is favored when supported by the statutory language.

## Conclusion

The Kentucky Supreme Court concluded that a bulldozer is a “vehicle” within the statutory definition of “building,” so intentionally burning a bulldozer can support a second-degree arson charge; it reversed the dismissal and ordered reinstatement of the indictment.


Commonwealth v. Plowman, 86 S.W.3d 47 (Ky. 2002)