STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
14-153
STATE IN THE INTEREST OF
K. L. A.
********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 24670 HONORABLE GUY ERNEST BRADBERRY, DISTRICT JUDGE
********** ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE **********
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Billy Howard Ezell, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.
Ezell, J., concurs.
AFFIRMED.
Emma J. DeVillier Assistant Attorney General Colin Clark Assistant Attorney General Attorney General’s Office P. O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Telephone: (225) 326-6200 COUNSEL FOR: Appellant – State of Louisiana
John F. DeRosier District Attorney – 14th Judicial District Carla Sue Sigler Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District James Kenneth Yelverton Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District Karen McClellan Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District Cynthia Lea Guillory Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District P. O. Box 3206 Lake Charles, LA 70602 Telephone: (337) 437-3400 COUNSEL FOR: Appellant – State of Louisiana Mike K. Stratton Public Defender’s Office 901 Lakeshore Drive – Suite 700 Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (337) 436-1718 COUNSEL FOR: Appellee – K. L. A.
Harry Pierre Fontenot, Jr. 1000 South Huntington Street – Suite D Sulphur, LA 70663 Telephone: (337) 527-3000 COUNSEL FOR: Appellee – K. L. A.
Dalonshia Thomas-Jordan Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District 901 Lakeshore Drive Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (337) 437-3400 COUNSEL FOR: Appellant – State of Louisiana
Edward King Alexander, Jr. Necole M. Williams P. O. Box 3757 Lake Charles, LA 70602 (337) 436-1718 COUNSEL FOR: Appellee – K.L.A. THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.
A juvenile adjudicated delinquent of aggravated incest filed a Motion
for Injunction/Cease and Desist Order/Stay Order, asserting that juveniles are not
subject to the sex offender registration requirements under La.R.S. 32:412(I) and
La.R.S. 40:1321(J), which require sex offenders to obtain driver’s licenses and
identification cards denoting their sex offender status. The trial court granted the
juvenile’s motion, reasoning that the requirements of La.R.S. 32:412(I) and
La.R.S. 40:1321(J) directly conflict with the community notification exemptions
afforded to juveniles under La.R.S. 15:542.1(C). For the following reasons, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I.
ISSUE
We shall consider whether a juvenile that is required to register as a
sex offender under La.R.S. 15:542 et seq. is also required under La.R.S. 32:412(I)
and La.R.S. 40:1321(J) to obtain a driver’s license and identification card that
identifies the juvenile as a sex offender.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 21, 2012, the juvenile, K.L.A., was adjudicated delinquent on
the charge of aggravated incest, a violation of La.R.S. 14:78.1. The trial judge
ordered that K.L.A. be committed to the custody of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections for a period of two years. The trial judge
subsequently modified the order and released K.L.A. to parental custody from the Office of Juvenile Justice, with the requirement that he update his sex offender
registration every ninety days from the date of initial registration. On July 19,
2013, Detective Sutherland of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office informed
K.L.A. that he must obtain a driver’s license and/or an identification card
containing the words “sex offender” by July 22, 2013 in order to comply with
La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J). In response, K.L.A. filed a Motion for
Injunction/Cease and Desist Order/Stay Order. He argued that La.R.S. 32:412(I)
and La.R.S. 40:1321(J) do not explicitly include juveniles and are in direct conflict
with the community notification exemptions afforded to juveniles under La.R.S.
15:542.1(C). In addition, K.L.A. argued that La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S.
40:1321(J) are unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, overinclusive, and amount to
cruel and unusual punishment when applied to juveniles. After a hearing, the trial
judge granted K.L.A.’s Motion for Injunction/Cease and Desist Order/Stay Order,
reasoning that since the requirements of La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J)
amount to community notifications, they do not apply to adjudicated juveniles who
are required to register as sex offenders but are exempt from community
notifications under La.R.S. 15:542.1(C). The State of Louisiana now appeals the
trial court’s judgment.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This case involves the interplay between the sex offender registration
and notification requirements under La.R.S. 15:542 et seq. and the sex offender
driver’s license and identification card requirements under La.R.S. 32:412(I) and
La.R.S. 40:1321(J). As this is an issue of statutory interpretation, it is a question of
2 law subject to a de novo standard of review. La. Mun. Ass’n v. State, 04-227 (La.
1/19/05), 893 So.2d 809; Stewart v. Estate of Stewart, 07-333 (La.App. 3 Cir.
10/3/07), 966 So.2d 1241.
IV.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
On appeal, the State argues that the driver’s license and identification
requirements under La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J) explicitly apply to
adjudicated juveniles given that the requirements apply to all sex offenders
required to register under La.R.S. 15:542 et seq. We disagree.
In interpreting these statutes, we are bound by long-standing rules of
statutory interpretation:
The starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself. [State v. Johnson, 03-2993, p. 11 (La. 10/19/04), 884 So.2d 568, 575; Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 95-2895, p. 3 (La. 5/20/97), 694 So.2d 184, 186]. “When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.” La. Civ.Code. art. 9; Johnson, 884 So.2d at 575. However, “when the language of the law is susceptible of different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law.” La. Civ.Code art. 10; Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02–0439 (La.1/14/03), 836 So.2d 14, 20. Moreover, “when the words of a law are ambiguous, their meaning must be sought by examining the context in which they occur and the text of the law as a whole.” La. Civ.Code art. 12.
It is also well established that the Legislature is presumed to enact each statute with deliberation and with full knowledge of all existing laws on the same subject. Johnson, 884 So.2d at 576; State v. Campbell, 03–3035 (La.7/6/04), 877 So.2d 112, 117. Thus, legislative language will be interpreted on the assumption the Legislature was aware of existing statutes, well
3 established principles of statutory construction and with knowledge of the effect of their acts and a purpose in view. Johnson, 884 So.2d at 576–77; Campbell, 877 So.2d at 117. It is equally well settled under our rules of statutory construction, where it is possible, courts have a duty in the interpretation of a statute to adopt a construction which harmonizes and reconciles it with other provisions dealing with the same subject matter. La. Civ.Code art.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
14-153
STATE IN THE INTEREST OF
K. L. A.
********** APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALCASIEU, NO. 24670 HONORABLE GUY ERNEST BRADBERRY, DISTRICT JUDGE
********** ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX CHIEF JUDGE **********
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, Billy Howard Ezell, and Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.
Ezell, J., concurs.
AFFIRMED.
Emma J. DeVillier Assistant Attorney General Colin Clark Assistant Attorney General Attorney General’s Office P. O. Box 94005 Baton Rouge, LA 70804 Telephone: (225) 326-6200 COUNSEL FOR: Appellant – State of Louisiana
John F. DeRosier District Attorney – 14th Judicial District Carla Sue Sigler Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District James Kenneth Yelverton Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District Karen McClellan Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District Cynthia Lea Guillory Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District P. O. Box 3206 Lake Charles, LA 70602 Telephone: (337) 437-3400 COUNSEL FOR: Appellant – State of Louisiana Mike K. Stratton Public Defender’s Office 901 Lakeshore Drive – Suite 700 Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (337) 436-1718 COUNSEL FOR: Appellee – K. L. A.
Harry Pierre Fontenot, Jr. 1000 South Huntington Street – Suite D Sulphur, LA 70663 Telephone: (337) 527-3000 COUNSEL FOR: Appellee – K. L. A.
Dalonshia Thomas-Jordan Assistant District Attorney – 14th Judicial District 901 Lakeshore Drive Lake Charles, LA 70601 Telephone: (337) 437-3400 COUNSEL FOR: Appellant – State of Louisiana
Edward King Alexander, Jr. Necole M. Williams P. O. Box 3757 Lake Charles, LA 70602 (337) 436-1718 COUNSEL FOR: Appellee – K.L.A. THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge.
A juvenile adjudicated delinquent of aggravated incest filed a Motion
for Injunction/Cease and Desist Order/Stay Order, asserting that juveniles are not
subject to the sex offender registration requirements under La.R.S. 32:412(I) and
La.R.S. 40:1321(J), which require sex offenders to obtain driver’s licenses and
identification cards denoting their sex offender status. The trial court granted the
juvenile’s motion, reasoning that the requirements of La.R.S. 32:412(I) and
La.R.S. 40:1321(J) directly conflict with the community notification exemptions
afforded to juveniles under La.R.S. 15:542.1(C). For the following reasons, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I.
ISSUE
We shall consider whether a juvenile that is required to register as a
sex offender under La.R.S. 15:542 et seq. is also required under La.R.S. 32:412(I)
and La.R.S. 40:1321(J) to obtain a driver’s license and identification card that
identifies the juvenile as a sex offender.
II.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On June 21, 2012, the juvenile, K.L.A., was adjudicated delinquent on
the charge of aggravated incest, a violation of La.R.S. 14:78.1. The trial judge
ordered that K.L.A. be committed to the custody of the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections for a period of two years. The trial judge
subsequently modified the order and released K.L.A. to parental custody from the Office of Juvenile Justice, with the requirement that he update his sex offender
registration every ninety days from the date of initial registration. On July 19,
2013, Detective Sutherland of the Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Office informed
K.L.A. that he must obtain a driver’s license and/or an identification card
containing the words “sex offender” by July 22, 2013 in order to comply with
La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J). In response, K.L.A. filed a Motion for
Injunction/Cease and Desist Order/Stay Order. He argued that La.R.S. 32:412(I)
and La.R.S. 40:1321(J) do not explicitly include juveniles and are in direct conflict
with the community notification exemptions afforded to juveniles under La.R.S.
15:542.1(C). In addition, K.L.A. argued that La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S.
40:1321(J) are unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, overinclusive, and amount to
cruel and unusual punishment when applied to juveniles. After a hearing, the trial
judge granted K.L.A.’s Motion for Injunction/Cease and Desist Order/Stay Order,
reasoning that since the requirements of La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J)
amount to community notifications, they do not apply to adjudicated juveniles who
are required to register as sex offenders but are exempt from community
notifications under La.R.S. 15:542.1(C). The State of Louisiana now appeals the
trial court’s judgment.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This case involves the interplay between the sex offender registration
and notification requirements under La.R.S. 15:542 et seq. and the sex offender
driver’s license and identification card requirements under La.R.S. 32:412(I) and
La.R.S. 40:1321(J). As this is an issue of statutory interpretation, it is a question of
2 law subject to a de novo standard of review. La. Mun. Ass’n v. State, 04-227 (La.
1/19/05), 893 So.2d 809; Stewart v. Estate of Stewart, 07-333 (La.App. 3 Cir.
10/3/07), 966 So.2d 1241.
IV.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
On appeal, the State argues that the driver’s license and identification
requirements under La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J) explicitly apply to
adjudicated juveniles given that the requirements apply to all sex offenders
required to register under La.R.S. 15:542 et seq. We disagree.
In interpreting these statutes, we are bound by long-standing rules of
statutory interpretation:
The starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself. [State v. Johnson, 03-2993, p. 11 (La. 10/19/04), 884 So.2d 568, 575; Theriot v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 95-2895, p. 3 (La. 5/20/97), 694 So.2d 184, 186]. “When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.” La. Civ.Code. art. 9; Johnson, 884 So.2d at 575. However, “when the language of the law is susceptible of different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law.” La. Civ.Code art. 10; Fontenot v. Reddell Vidrine Water Dist., 02–0439 (La.1/14/03), 836 So.2d 14, 20. Moreover, “when the words of a law are ambiguous, their meaning must be sought by examining the context in which they occur and the text of the law as a whole.” La. Civ.Code art. 12.
It is also well established that the Legislature is presumed to enact each statute with deliberation and with full knowledge of all existing laws on the same subject. Johnson, 884 So.2d at 576; State v. Campbell, 03–3035 (La.7/6/04), 877 So.2d 112, 117. Thus, legislative language will be interpreted on the assumption the Legislature was aware of existing statutes, well
3 established principles of statutory construction and with knowledge of the effect of their acts and a purpose in view. Johnson, 884 So.2d at 576–77; Campbell, 877 So.2d at 117. It is equally well settled under our rules of statutory construction, where it is possible, courts have a duty in the interpretation of a statute to adopt a construction which harmonizes and reconciles it with other provisions dealing with the same subject matter. La. Civ.Code art. 13; City of New Orleans v. Louisiana Assessors’ Retirement and Relief Fund, 05–2548, [(La.10/1/07), 986 So.2d 1].
M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 07-2371, pp. 13-14 (La. 7/1/08), 998 So.2d
16, 27.
Following the rules of statutory interpretation, we must first examine
the plain language of the statutes in question. Louisiana Revised Statutes 32:412(I)
states, in pertinent part:
I. (1) The Louisiana driver’s license, regardless of its class, issued to any person who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to R.S. 15:542 and R.S. 15:542.1 shall contain a restriction code which declares that the license holder is a sex offender. The secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall comply with the provisions of this Subsection and the driver’s license shall include the words “sex offender” which shall be orange in color.
....
(5) The provisions of this Subsection shall apply to all registered sex offenders regardless of the date of conviction.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 40:1321(J) provides similar requirements in regards to
mandatory identification cards for registered sex offenders:
J. (1) Any person required to register as a sex offender with the Louisiana Bureau of Criminal Identification and Information, as required by R.S. 15:542 et seq., shall obtain a special identification card issued by the Department of Public Safety and Corrections which shall contain a restriction code declaring that the holder is a sex offender.
4 ....
(3) The provisions of this Subsection shall apply to all sex offenders required to register pursuant to R.S. 15:542 et seq., regardless of the date of conviction. As K.L.A. was adjudicated delinquent of aggravated incest, a violation of La.R.S.
14:78.1, he is required to register as a sex offender under La.R.S. 15:542(A)(3)(f).
As La.R.S. 32:412(I)(1) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J)(1) both state that any person
required to register as a sex offender under La.R.S. 15:542 et seq. shall be required
to comply with the driver’s license and identification card requirements, one could
reasonably interpret the statute to apply to adjudicated juveniles like K.L.A.
However, both La.R.S. 32:412(I)(5) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J)(3) also state that sex
offenders required to register under La.R.S. 15:542 et seq. must comply with the
driver’s license and identification requirements “regardless of the date of
conviction.” Thus, it is reasonable to interpret the driver’s license and
identification requirements only apply to registered sex offenders who have been
convicted of a crime. Given that the Louisiana Supreme Court has explicitly stated
that juvenile adjudications are not convictions, one could just as easily find that the
registration requirements under La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J) do not
apply to adjudicated juveniles like K.L.A.
As the statutory language of La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J)
gives rise to two conflicting interpretations in regards to whether their
requirements apply to adjudicated juveniles, the statutes are ambiguous on their
face. As such, we must look beyond the plain language to find the interpretation
that best conforms to the purpose of the laws. Considering criminal statutes are
interpreted with lenity in favor of the accused and “should be so interpreted as to
be in harmony with, preserve, and effectuate the manifest intent of the
5 legislature[,]” we reason that La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J) should not
apply to juveniles adjudicated delinquent. State v. Brown, 03-2788, p. 6 (La.
7/6/04), 879 So.2d 1276, 1280.
First, the legislature never intended for juveniles to be subject to these
requirements. Louisiana Children’s Code Article 884.1(A)(6) states that when a
child is adjudicated delinquent of aggravated incest, the court shall provide the
child with written notice of the sex offender registration requirements. Louisiana
Children’s Code Article 884.1(B) provides the actual form for the notice, which
outlines all of the registration requirements for adjudicated juveniles. Notably,
La.Ch.Code art. 884.1, which was enacted in 2010, does not include the driver’s
license or identification card registration requirements of La.R.S. 32:412(I) and
La.R.S. 40:1321(J), which were enacted in 2006. See 2006 La. Sess. Law Serv.
Act 663 (S.B. 612) (La. 2006); 2010 La. Sess. Law Serv. Act 594 (H.B. 702) (La.
2010). Considering legislative language is interpreted with the assumption that the
legislature is aware of existing statutes, it is assumed that the legislature was aware
of the registration requirements under La.R.S. 32:412(I) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J)
when it drafted La.Ch.Code art. 884.1. Thus, the explicit exclusion of these
requirements from adjudicated juveniles under La.Ch.Code art. 884.1 must be
considered purposeful.
Beyond legislative intent, applying the requirements of La.R.S.
32:412(I) and La.R.S. 40:1321(J) to adjudicated juveniles creates inherent discord
with the other statutory provisions regarding juvenile sex offender registration and
notification. Louisiana Children’s Code Article 412(A) stipulates that “[r]ecords
and reports concerning all matters or proceedings before the juvenile court, except
traffic violations, are confidential and shall not be disclosed except as expressly
6 authorized by this Code.” This mandate of confidentiality under Article 412
applies equally to the sex offender registration requirements for juveniles.
Specifically, La.R.S. 15:542.1(C) states that “[a]ny juvenile required to register in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter shall be exempt from any
notification requirements of this Section” unless they provide recreational
instruction to persons under the age of seventeen. Considering the driver’s license
and/or identification card is the primary means of identification in the community
and is oftentimes a necessity to perform everyday acts such as purchasing goods,
opening financial accounts, or buying or leasing real estate, to require juveniles to
have the status of sex offender written on their driver’s license or identification
card would completely undermine the confidentiality requirements and notification
exemptions mandated by the Louisiana Children’s Code and the Louisiana Revised
Statutes. In order to resolve this discord in the law and preserve the manifest intent
of the legislature, it follows that the registration requirements of La.R.S. 32:412(I)
and La.R.S. 40:1321(J) cannot apply to juveniles adjudicated delinquent. As such,
the trial court did not err in finding that K.L.A., as a juvenile adjudicated
delinquent of aggravated incest, was not required to obtain a driver’s license or
State ID that designates his status as a sex offender. We need not consider the
constitutional arguments raised by K.L.A. because all issues have been disposed of
on non-constitutional grounds. La. Mun. Ass’n, 893 So.2d 809.
V.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.