[451]*451OPINION
By the Court,
Gunderson, J.:
This is an appeal from an order whereby the district court determined that a laboratory assistant was not a person legally authorized to withdraw a blood sample for analysis of blood alcohol content. We disagree with the district court’s determination, and therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Facts
On June 8, 1985, a car driven by Joseph Webster collided with a motorcycle. The two people riding on the motorcycle sustained severe injuries. The responding Nevada Highway Patrol officer noticed an odor of alcohol emanating from Webster. Pursuant to the officer’s request, Webster agreed to submit to a legal blood alcohol analysis. A laboratory assistant from Carson-Tahoe Hospital withdrew the blood sample and analysis revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.101 percent.
On October 2, 1985, Webster was charged with two felony counts of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor with resulting substantial bodily harm, and two felony counts of reckless driving causing substantial bodily harm. Shortly thereafter, Webster filed a motion to suppress all evidence relating to the [452]*452blood test (including the results), contending the blood sample had been drawn by a person not authorized to do so pursuant to statute. The motion was opposed by the State, and on December 19, 1985, the district court granted the motion to suppress. The court determined that a laboratory assistant was not one authorized by statute to withdraw such a sample. We have determined that the district court erred.
Issue Presented
NRS 484.393 provides in pertinent part:
1. The results of any blood test administered under the provisions of NRS 484.383 or 484.391 are not admissible in any hearing or criminal action arising out of the acts alleged to have been committed while a person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance unless:
(a) The blood tested was withdrawn by a physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, advanced emergency medical technician-ambulance or a technician employed in a medical laboratory.
The State argues that a laboratory assistant falls within the language “technician employed in a medical laboratory.” The district court relied on two sections of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) presented by Webster which defines “medical technician” and “laboratory assistant.”1 A review of these provisions [453]*453reveals that the entities have different levels of training and responsibility.
This court is charged with the responsibility of determining whether the district court erred in determining that the statute should be construed to exclude laboratory assistants as defined by the Board of Health in NAC 652.450. We are thus required to consider the intent of the legislature in construing the language of NRS 484.393(l)(a).
Discussion
We first note that the statute was enacted in 1969 and contained the language “technician employed in a medical laboratory.” See 1969 Nev. Stats, ch. 341 § 7. The rules and regulations governing medical laboratories were approved by the Board of Health on May 15, 1974, and became effective as of August 5, 1974. Our research has failed to reveal that these job descriptions existed prior to 1974. This being the case, the legislature could not have intended “technician” to encompass “medical technician” as defined in NAC 652.440. It would be impossible for the legislature in 1969 to consider code provisions which did not exist until 1974.
Regardless of the above, further analysis leads us to conclude that the legislature did not intend for “technician” to be so narrowly construed. The meaning of certain words in a statute may be determined after examination of the context in which they are used and by considering the spirit of the law. Welfare Div. v. Washoe Co. Welfare Dep’t, 88 Nev. 635, 637-38, 503 P.2d 457, 459 (1972). Additionally, statutory construction should always avoid an absurd result. Id. see also Escalle v. Mark, 43 Nev. 172, 175-76, 183 P. 387, 388 (1919).
We note that “technician” is generally used in a generic sense. A technician is “[o]ne versed or skilled in the technical details of a subject or art.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2590 (2nd ed. 1959). In the absence of any reason to the contrary, a word which is ambiguous should receive that meaning which is generally ascribed to it within the community. Comstock M. & [454]*454M. Co. v. Allen, 21 Nev. 325, 331, 31 P. 436 (1892). It is obvious to us that creation of a more narrow definition of this term would be contrary to the rule of statutory construction which requires that ordinary meanings be ascribed to ambiguous words or phrases.
Next, our review of the spirit of the law reveals that the obvious purpose of NRS 484.393(1)(a) is to assure that a medically trained and competent individual will withdraw the blood sample in an acceptable manner. An examination of the amendments to NRS 484.393 reveals that the legislature has broadened the categories of persons qualified to withdraw legal blood samples. Licensed practical nurses and paramedics have been so included. The legislature has been cognizant of various problems which arise as a result of the statute being too restrictive. Specifically, the legislature has been concerned with the actual manpower available and a desire for cost-effectiveness. Assembly Committee on Transportation, May 6, 1981 and March 5, 1969. We are particularly concerned with the burdens which would be imposed on small, rural health care facilities if “technician” is construed as Webster urges. In Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 50 Nev. 377, 382, 262 P. 935, 936 (1928), this court directed that statutory construction should produce an effect which is not likely to “produce mischief.” Construing the term “technician” in its general meaning will avoid “mischief.” This will be accomplished without sacrificing the standards which are necessary in order to assure the public that a qualified individual withdraws the necessary blood sample.
Lastly, we disagree with Webster’s contention that this is a penal statute and, thus, must be construed in order that any doubt as to its meaning be resolved in his favor. A penal law is one which imposes a penalty for an offense of a public nature. Tulsa Ready-Mix Con. Co. v. McMichael Concrete Co., 495 P.2d 1279, 1281-82 (Okla. 1972); Black’s Law Dictionary 1290 (4th ed. 1951). NRS 484.393 fails to define an offense or prescribe a penalty.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[451]*451OPINION
By the Court,
Gunderson, J.:
This is an appeal from an order whereby the district court determined that a laboratory assistant was not a person legally authorized to withdraw a blood sample for analysis of blood alcohol content. We disagree with the district court’s determination, and therefore, reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Facts
On June 8, 1985, a car driven by Joseph Webster collided with a motorcycle. The two people riding on the motorcycle sustained severe injuries. The responding Nevada Highway Patrol officer noticed an odor of alcohol emanating from Webster. Pursuant to the officer’s request, Webster agreed to submit to a legal blood alcohol analysis. A laboratory assistant from Carson-Tahoe Hospital withdrew the blood sample and analysis revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.101 percent.
On October 2, 1985, Webster was charged with two felony counts of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor with resulting substantial bodily harm, and two felony counts of reckless driving causing substantial bodily harm. Shortly thereafter, Webster filed a motion to suppress all evidence relating to the [452]*452blood test (including the results), contending the blood sample had been drawn by a person not authorized to do so pursuant to statute. The motion was opposed by the State, and on December 19, 1985, the district court granted the motion to suppress. The court determined that a laboratory assistant was not one authorized by statute to withdraw such a sample. We have determined that the district court erred.
Issue Presented
NRS 484.393 provides in pertinent part:
1. The results of any blood test administered under the provisions of NRS 484.383 or 484.391 are not admissible in any hearing or criminal action arising out of the acts alleged to have been committed while a person was under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled substance unless:
(a) The blood tested was withdrawn by a physician, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, advanced emergency medical technician-ambulance or a technician employed in a medical laboratory.
The State argues that a laboratory assistant falls within the language “technician employed in a medical laboratory.” The district court relied on two sections of the Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) presented by Webster which defines “medical technician” and “laboratory assistant.”1 A review of these provisions [453]*453reveals that the entities have different levels of training and responsibility.
This court is charged with the responsibility of determining whether the district court erred in determining that the statute should be construed to exclude laboratory assistants as defined by the Board of Health in NAC 652.450. We are thus required to consider the intent of the legislature in construing the language of NRS 484.393(l)(a).
Discussion
We first note that the statute was enacted in 1969 and contained the language “technician employed in a medical laboratory.” See 1969 Nev. Stats, ch. 341 § 7. The rules and regulations governing medical laboratories were approved by the Board of Health on May 15, 1974, and became effective as of August 5, 1974. Our research has failed to reveal that these job descriptions existed prior to 1974. This being the case, the legislature could not have intended “technician” to encompass “medical technician” as defined in NAC 652.440. It would be impossible for the legislature in 1969 to consider code provisions which did not exist until 1974.
Regardless of the above, further analysis leads us to conclude that the legislature did not intend for “technician” to be so narrowly construed. The meaning of certain words in a statute may be determined after examination of the context in which they are used and by considering the spirit of the law. Welfare Div. v. Washoe Co. Welfare Dep’t, 88 Nev. 635, 637-38, 503 P.2d 457, 459 (1972). Additionally, statutory construction should always avoid an absurd result. Id. see also Escalle v. Mark, 43 Nev. 172, 175-76, 183 P. 387, 388 (1919).
We note that “technician” is generally used in a generic sense. A technician is “[o]ne versed or skilled in the technical details of a subject or art.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2590 (2nd ed. 1959). In the absence of any reason to the contrary, a word which is ambiguous should receive that meaning which is generally ascribed to it within the community. Comstock M. & [454]*454M. Co. v. Allen, 21 Nev. 325, 331, 31 P. 436 (1892). It is obvious to us that creation of a more narrow definition of this term would be contrary to the rule of statutory construction which requires that ordinary meanings be ascribed to ambiguous words or phrases.
Next, our review of the spirit of the law reveals that the obvious purpose of NRS 484.393(1)(a) is to assure that a medically trained and competent individual will withdraw the blood sample in an acceptable manner. An examination of the amendments to NRS 484.393 reveals that the legislature has broadened the categories of persons qualified to withdraw legal blood samples. Licensed practical nurses and paramedics have been so included. The legislature has been cognizant of various problems which arise as a result of the statute being too restrictive. Specifically, the legislature has been concerned with the actual manpower available and a desire for cost-effectiveness. Assembly Committee on Transportation, May 6, 1981 and March 5, 1969. We are particularly concerned with the burdens which would be imposed on small, rural health care facilities if “technician” is construed as Webster urges. In Smith v. Southern Pacific Co., 50 Nev. 377, 382, 262 P. 935, 936 (1928), this court directed that statutory construction should produce an effect which is not likely to “produce mischief.” Construing the term “technician” in its general meaning will avoid “mischief.” This will be accomplished without sacrificing the standards which are necessary in order to assure the public that a qualified individual withdraws the necessary blood sample.
Lastly, we disagree with Webster’s contention that this is a penal statute and, thus, must be construed in order that any doubt as to its meaning be resolved in his favor. A penal law is one which imposes a penalty for an offense of a public nature. Tulsa Ready-Mix Con. Co. v. McMichael Concrete Co., 495 P.2d 1279, 1281-82 (Okla. 1972); Black’s Law Dictionary 1290 (4th ed. 1951). NRS 484.393 fails to define an offense or prescribe a penalty. We also decline to determine that every section of an act must be strictly construed merely because sections of the act provide for criminal penalties. Cf. Mourning v. Family Publications Service, Inc., 93 S.Ct. 1652, 1663 (1973).
The purpose of the rule requiring strict construction of a penal statute is to ensure that individuals have notice of conduct which is deemed criminal by the state. Id. United States v. Otherson, 637 F.2d 1276, 1285 (9th Cir. 1976); Adler v. Sheriff, 92 Nev. 436, 441, 552 P.2d 334, 337 (1976). Conduct must be “plainly and unmistakenly within the statute” before punishment may be [455]*455imposed. Adler at 441. A statute cannot encompass conduct which is not clearly described. We also desire that the legislature, rather than the courts, define criminal behavior and prescribe the penalties. Here, there are no such concerns. NRS 484.393 is designed to protect a defendant from bodily intrusion by unqualified personnel. We are not confronted with the potential for arbitrary law enforcement and, thus, are unable to determine that strict construction of this statute is required.
We also note that even if the statute was deemed one of a penal nature, a different result would not follow. “[T]he rule of lenity has little independent force; it cannot substitute for common sense, legislative history, and the policy underlying a statute.” Otherson at 1285. Here, these factors have been evaluated. “Technician” must be given its ordinary meaning. To do otherwise would ignore obvious legislative intent and distort the meaning of the term beyond that of common sense. See also State v. Nevada Northern Railway Co., 48 Nev. 436, 440, 233 P. 531, 532 (1925). We also note that the rule of lenity does not require the narrowest possible interpretation. Words or phrases in criminal statutes have been interpreted broadly. Otherson at 1285. A penal statute should not be so narrowly construed as to interfere with the state’s ability to administer its criminal laws in an efficient manner. United States v. Mussry, 726 F.2d 1448, 1455 (9th Cir. 1984).
Therefore, for the above reasons, we reverse the decision of the district court which suppressed all evidence related to the blood alcohol analysis. In view of the plain meaning and the purpose of the statute, the term “technician in a medical laboratory” is to be construed liberally. There is ample evidence to indicate that a laboratory assistant is one authorized pursuant to NRS 484.393 to withdraw blood samples for analysis of alcohol content. We remand this case to the district court in order that the qualifications of the technician in question be examined. If the district court judge is satisfied that she was competent to withdraw such a blood sample, then the case shall proceed on its merits.
Mowbray, C. J., and Steffen, J., concur.