Campbell v. State

709 P.2d 425, 1985 Wyo. LEXIS 608

• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court
• Decided: November 20, 1985
• Docket: 85-53
• Status: Published

Opinions

ROONEY, Justice.

Appellant appeals from the judgment and sentence entered after he pled guilty to an information charging violation of § 14-3-105, W.S.1977.¹ He words the issues on appeal as follows:

“1. THE PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION DICTATE A CONSTRUCTION OF W.S. § 14-3-105 (1977 REPUBLISHED ED.) THAT WOULD DEFINE ‘CHILD’ AS USED IN W.S. § 14-3-105 (1977 REPUBLISHED ED.) AS A PERSON UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN (16) YEARS OF AGE.

“2. AN INCURABLE DEFECT IN THE INFORMATION IS JURISDICTIONAL AND DEPRIVES THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, A POINT WHICH MAY BE RAISED AT ANY POINT IN THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS TRIAL COURT WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WHERE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE INFORMATION CHARGED THE DEFENDANT WITH TAKING INDECENT LIBERTIES OF A ‘CHILD’ WHO WAS SIXTEEN (16) YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OCCURRENCE.

“3. THE ENTRY OF A PLEA OF GUILTY DOES NOT PRECLUDE OBJECTION TO THE TRIAL COURT’S JURISDICTION AND IT’S [SIC] DENIAL OF A MOTION TO DISMISS.” (Emphasis in original.)

Appellant’s first issue concerns the meaning of the word “child” as used in § 14-3-105, W.S.1977. The primary objective in construing a statute is ascertainment of legislative intent. Sanches v. Sanches, Wyo., 626 P.2d 61, 62 (1981). If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, such language controls, and there is no need to resort to rules of construction to determine the intent of the legislature. Sanches v. Sanches, supra; Geraud v. Schrader, Wyo., 531 P.2d 872, 878, cert. denied sub nom Wind River Indian Education Association, Inc. v. Ward., 423 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct. 205, 46 L.Ed.2d 134 (1975). A statute which is uncertain and susceptible to more than one meaning is ambiguous. Attletweedt v. State, Wyo., 684 P.2d 812, 814 (1984). The word “child” in § 14-3-105 is ambiguous in that the ages encompassed in the word are uncertain, and the legislative intent as to such ages cannot be ascertained from the language of the statute.

Recently, in McArtor v. State, Wyo., 699 P.2d 288 (1985), we were presented with the same issue here presented. There we resorted to rules of construction and ascertained that the definition of “such child” in § 14-3-105, as originally enacted and as in effect in June of 1977, could be obtained by reference to the immediately preceding characterization of child, which was “under the age of eighteen years.”

However, this case is not controlled by the rule of construction used in McArtor because the incident in this case occurred March 27, 1984 and both § 14-3-105 as well as the immediately preceding § 14-3-104² were amended in 1978 subsequent to the McArtor incident. One of the changes in § 14-3-105 resulting from the amendment was the removal of reference to a parent, guardian or custodian; another change was the omission of the word “such” modifying “child.” Thus, as the statute now reads there is no constructive reference to the immediately preceding statute. Since the modifier is no longer present, we cannot use the rule of statutory construction used in McArtor to ascertain legislative intent, and we must resort to other of those rules for that purpose.

“ * * * It is the duty of courts to endeav- or by every rule of construction available to ascertain the meaning of and give full force and effect to the legislative product. * * * ” Yeik v. Department of Revenue and Taxation, Wyo., 595 P.2d 965, 968-969 (1979).

All statutes on a subject must be construed in pari materia. State ex rel. Motor Vehicle Division v. Holtz, Wyo., 674 P.2d 732, 735 (1983).

“It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that to ascertain the meaning of a given law all statutes relating to the same subject or having the same general purpose shall be read in connection with it as constituting one law. * ⅜ * ” Stringer v. Board of County Commissioners of Big Horn County, Wyo., 347 P.2d 197, 200 (1959).

Chapter 25, Session Laws of Wyoming, 1978,³ is in effect a recodification of the statutes dealing with children. The first section of it provides:

“14-1-101. Age of Majority. Upon becoming nineteen (19) years of age, an individual reaches the age of majority and as an adult acquires all rights and responsibilities granted or imposed by statute or common law, except as otherwise provided by law.”

However, the act sets other ages with specific sections wherein references are made to “child” or “minor” or other similar terms, some of which are defined as “minor or under the age of seventeen (17) years” § 14-2-203; “child under the age of eighteen (18) years” § 14-2-204, § 14-2-301; “anyone under the age of sixteen (16) years” § 14-3-104; “ ‘[cjhild’ means any person under the age of sixteen (16)” § 14 — 3—202(a)(iii); “ ‘[cjhild’ means a person who, by reason of minority, is legally subject to parental, guardianship or similar control” § 14-5-101(a); and “ ‘[cjhild’ means an individual who is under the age of majority” § 14 — 6—201(a)(iii). Of course, the specific age in the section will prevail over the general age designation in § 14-1-101, W.S.1977. City of Rock Springs v. Police Protection Association, Wyo., 610 P.2d 975, 979 (1980); Department of Revenue and Taxation v. Irvine, Wyo., 589 P.2d 1295, 1299 (1979). Where a specific age is not set forth in the statute, the age set forth in the general statute, i.e., § 14-1-101, shall apply.

« * * * iegisiature w¡n not be presumed to intend futile things. * * * “ * * * It is contrary to reason to ascribe to a statute a meaning that will nullify its operation, if capable of any other interpretation. * * * A statute should be construed in such a fashion that one provision will not destroy another. * * * ” (Citations omitted.) DeHerrera v. Herrera, Wyo., 565 P.2d 479, 482 (1977).

Accordingly, reading the provisions of Chapter 25, Session Laws of Wyoming, 1978, in pari materia and giving full effect to § 14-1-101 as it applies to the act, the references to “child” or “minor” in the act, other than when another specific age is set, is to an individual under the age of nineteen years. Section 14-3-105 does not set another specific age. Therefore, the word “child” in that section refers to one under the age of nineteen years.

Because this holding is dispositive, we will not need to address appellant’s second and third issues.

Affirmed.

1 . Section 14-3-105, W.S.1977, provides:

"Any person knowingly taking immodest, immoral or indecent liberties with any child or knowingly causing or encouraging any child to cause or encourage another child to commit with him any immoral or indecent act is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than ten (10) years, or both."

2 . Section 14-3-104, W.S.1977, now provides:

“Anyone who solicits, procures or knowingly encourages anyone under the age of sixteen (16) years to engage in illicit sexual penetration or sexual intrusion as defined in W.S. 6-4-203 is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be imprisoned for a term not more than five (5) years.”

3 . Sections 14-1-101 through 14-9-106.