State v. Barchas
This text of 533 P.2d 744 (State v. Barchas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Jean Louise Barchas, the defendant-appellant, was found guilty in magistrate’s court of a violation of I.C. § 49-1071 for operating a motor vehicle displaying an expired registration. She appealed the decision to the district court where the decision of the magistrate’s court was affirmed. Mrs. Barchas then appealed from the district court’s decision. The principal issue which this court must consider on this appeal is whether the state’s construction of I.C. § 49-113,2 providing for the issuance of pressure sensitive registration stickers to designate the year or period of registration on vehicle license plates, was [624]*624erroneous. It is the conclusion of this court that the judgment must be reversed.
On December 27, 1971, appellant was issued a “Uniform Traffic Ticket and Complaint” by a State Police Officer charging her with a violation of I.C. § 49-107 alleging: “Expired plates, Oct. 1971”. (See also, I.C. § 49-125.)3 According to the stipulation of facts, the appellant’s vehicle had displayed on it Idaho license plates with pressure sensitive registration stickers attached. Printed on each sticker was the word “Idaho”, a serial number and the numeral “71”. No designation of the actual registration period appeared on the sticker or license plate.
Under the statutes concerning vehicle registration, I.C. §§ 49-126,4 49-126A,5 and 49-102,6 it is contemplated that the registration of vehicles whose license numbers end with the numeral “1” shall expire annually on January 31; the registration of those vehicles whose license plate numbers end with the numeral “2” expires annually on February 28 or 29, and so on for each month of the year through September. The registration of those vehicles whose license plate numbers end with the numeral “0” expires annually on October 31. I.C. § 49-126 provides that the months of November and December shall be considered the eleventh and twelfth periods, respectively.
The magistrate heard the case on the stipulation of facts and arguments of counsel, and held that the registration card [625]*625issued with the stickers gave sufficient notice of the expiration date of the registration. Upon appeal, the district court affirmed the judgment of the magistrate’s court, ruling that the Department of Law Enforcement’s determination of the registration period expiration dates superceded a failure by the county assessor to comply with the provisions of I.C. § 49-113, supra, which requires the assessor to furnish a registration sticker which shows “the calendar year or registration period for which it is issued”.
The appellant contends, in effect, that I.C. § 49-113 requires that the registration sticker discloses the expiration date by year if it is for a calendar year, and if not for a calendar year, then the expiration date of the period of registration (see, I.C. § 49-126(1), n. 4, supra, which establishes twelve separate registration periods). Appellant further argues that since only the number “71” appeared on the sticker given by the assessor, the number “71” indicated the registration for the year “1971”, an¿ not for any of the twelve separate registration periods, and thus the registration expired on December 31, 1971. Appellant concludes that the registration sticker had not expired when she was cited on December 27, 1971.
It is the conclusion of the court that I. C. § 49-113 discloses that the legislature intended that the calendar year of registration be designated on the sticker if the registration period of the vehicle was for the whole calendar year, and that the actual registration period be designated on the sticker if the registration period of the year was for one of the twelve periods specified by I.C. § 49-126. By amending I.C. § 49-113 in 1969 (S.L.1969, Ch. 70, pp. 218-220), the legislature intended a change from the previous act. DeRousse v. Higginson, 95 Idaho 173, 505 P.2d 321 (1973). The legislature, by amending the statute, expressed its intent that notice of the expiration of the registration period should be given by means of the pressure sensitive registration sticker attached to the license plates, and that this notice should designate the expiration of the registration period, not the calendar year during which the registration expires.
I.C. § 49-147 specifies that “[i]t shall be unlawful and constitute a misdemeanor for any person to violate any of the provisions of this chapter * * * However, when the failure to comply with the statutory provisions is attributable to the failure of the pressure sensitive sticker to set forth the specific period for which registration was issued, this criminal conviction for a charge occurring in calendar year 1971 cannot be sustained.
The judgment is reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
533 P.2d 744, 96 Idaho 623, 1975 Ida. LEXIS 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barchas-idaho-1975.