A jury convicted defendant of inmate assault on a prison employee and habitual offender, third offense. MCL 750.197c; MSA 28.394(3), MCL 769.11; MSA 28.1083. The trial court sentenced him to five to eight years’ imprisonment, to run consecutive to the sentence he was serving when he committed the assault. Defendant appeals as of right, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his assault conviction. Reluctantly, we agree and reverse.
Defendant was incarcerated at Ionia Maximum Facility. Sergeant Phil Waldron worked there as the supervisor of a response team responsible for controlling prisoners not cooperating with other corrections personnel. On June 13, 1994, the team was dispatched to restrain defendant. Defendant had thrust his arm through the cell’s food slot and refused to withdraw it. The recommended course of action was to place defendant into soft restraints and close the cell’s food slot.
As the team approached defendant’s cell, defendant was yelling for a new paper gown. When Sergeant Waldron arrived, defendant threw a cup of liquefied feces at him, striking him in the face and eyes.
On appeal, defendant argues that the prosecution provided evidence only that he was in prison at the time of the assault. He asserts that it neglected to prove that his imprisonment was lawful. As a consequence, defendant argues, there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
The statute which defendant was charged with violating, MCL 750.197c; MSA 28.394(3), provides:
*233A person lawfully imprisoned in a jail, other place of confinement established by law for any term, or lawfully imprisoned for any purpose at any other place, including but not limited to hospitals and other health care facilities or awaiting examination, trial, arraignment, sentence, or after sentence or awaiting or during transfer to or from a prison, for a crime or offense, or charged with a crime or offense who, without being discharged from the place of confinement, or other lawful imprisonment by due process of law, through the use of violence, threats of violence or dangerous weapons, assaults an employee of the place of confinement or other custodian knowing the person to be an employee or custodian or breaks the place of confinement and escapes, or breaks the place of confinement although an escape is not actually made, is guilty of a felony.
The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643; 521 NW2d 557 (1994). The first criterion in determining intent is the specific language of the statute. People v Hammons, 210 Mich App 554, 557; 534 NW2d 183 (1995); People v Hawkins, 181 Mich App 393, 396; 448 NW2d 858 (1989). Where the Legislature makes its intent known through clear and explicit language, this Court must enforce that intent. People v Bellafant, 105 Mich App 788, 790-791; 307 NW2d 422 (1981).
Here, we find that the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. The Legislature specifically chose to use the word “lawfully” in determining to whom it applied. In construing the statute, we presume that every word has some meaning, and we will avoid any construction that would render it, or any part of it, surplusage or nugatory. People v Weiss, 191 Mich App 553, 559; 479 NW2d 30 (1991).
*234The prosecution had the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was imprisoned lawfully when the assault occurred. While the prosecutor did establish that defendant was imprisoned at the Ionia Maximum Facility, at no point did it show that defendant was there lawfully. During closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the lawfulness of the imprisonment could be inferred from the imprisonment itself. However, no evidence was presented at trial to support the claim. A statement by the prosecutor during closing argument does not remedy the omission. Counsel’s arguments are not evidence. Zantop Int’l Airlines, Inc v Eastern Airlines, 200 Mich App 344, 364; 503 NW2d 915 (1993). Nothing exists in the record to enable a rational trier of fact to conclude that an essential element of the crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
It would have been a simple matter for the prosecution to submit evidence that defendant was lawfully imprisoned. The judgment of sentence would have sufficed. However, here we have no choice but to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to sustain defendant’s conviction. Moreover, the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes a retrial, the convictions and sentences being vacated due to an insufficiency of the evidence. People v Setzler, 210 Mich App 138, 140; 533 NW2d 18 (1995).
Reversed.