State v. Woodrow

• Decision Date: 15 September 2011
• Docket Number: 20100337,20100336.,20100335,Nos. 20100334,s. 20100334
• Citation: 803 N.W.2d 572,2011 ND 192
• Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellantv.Michael WOODROW, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

803 N.W.2d 572

2011 ND 192

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.Michael WOODROW, Defendant and Appellee.

Nos. 20100334

20100337

20100335

20100336.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Sept. 15, 2011.

Elizabeth Ledgerwood Pendlay, State's Attorney, Crosby, N.D., for plaintiff and appellant.Tom P. Slorby, Minot, N.D., for defendant and appellee.KAPSNER, Justice.

[¶ 1] The State appeals from a district court order granting Michael Woodrow's motion to dismiss five counts of gross sexual imposition, class A felonies, based on a lack of jurisdiction. Because we conclude the district court has jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(8), we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I

[¶ 2] In December 2007, the State filed a summons and amended petition in the juvenile court alleging Woodrow committed five counts of gross sexual imposition. The juvenile court subsequently entered an order transferring jurisdiction for all five counts to the district court, and Woodrow appealed. In Interest of M.W., 2009 ND 55, 764 N.W.2d 185 (“ M.W. I ”), this Court reversed the juvenile court order and remanded for further proceedings under N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(1)(c).

[¶ 3] On remand, the juvenile court held another transfer hearing in August 2009, and the parties presented further testimony regarding the other elements required for transfer under N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(1)(c). On January 3, 2010, Woodrow turned twenty years old. In orders dated January 6, 2010, and filed January 7, 2010, the juvenile court transferred jurisdiction for counts four and five of the amended petition to the district court, but denied transferring the first three counts. Woodrow appealed the juvenile court's order transferring counts four and five to the district court. In Interest of M.W., 2010 ND 135, 785 N.W.2d 211 (“ M.W. II ”), we held the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over the matter at the time it entered its transfer order because Woodrow had turned twenty years of age.

[¶ 4] In January and February 2010, the State filed four criminal complaints in the district court alleging Woodrow committed five counts of gross sexual imposition. In July 2010, Woodrow filed a motion to dismiss, alleging the district court lacked jurisdiction over the five gross sexual imposition charges under N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(5). The State opposed the motion, asserting Woodrow was properly charged in the district court under N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(8). After a September 2010 hearing, the court issued an order granting Woodrow's motion to dismiss all five counts, stating the court was without jurisdiction.

II

[¶ 5] The State argues the district court erred in dismissing the charges against Woodrow based on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. To address this issue, we must construe provisions of N.D.C.C. ch. 27–20 to decide whether the district court has jurisdiction over the charges.

[¶ 6] Words in a statute are given their plain, ordinary, and commonly understood meaning, unless they are defined by statute or unless a contrary intention plainly appears. N.D.C.C. § 1–02–02. Statutes are construed as a whole and are harmonized to give meaning to related provisions. N.D.C.C. § 1–02–07. If the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the letter of the statute cannot be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. N.D.C.C. § 1–02–05. Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which is fully reviewable on appeal. Kaspari v. Olson, 2011 ND 124, ¶ 13, 799 N.W.2d 348.

A

[¶ 7] The State argues that N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(8), rather than N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(5), applies to provide the district court jurisdiction over the charges.

[¶ 8] Section 27–20–34(5), N.D.C.C., states: “ No child subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, either before or after reaching eighteen years of age, may be prosecuted for an offense previously committed unless the case has been transferred as provided in this section.” (Emphasis added.) However, N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(8), provides for the district court's “original and exclusive jurisdiction” in specified circumstances, and states:

A person [1] at least twenty years of age who [2] committed an offense while a child and [3] was not adjudicated for the offense in juvenile court may be prosecuted in district court as an adult, unless [4] the state intentionally delayed the prosecution to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction. The district court has original and exclusive jurisdiction for the prosecution under this subsection.

(Emphasis added.)

[¶ 9] In M.W. II, 2010 ND 135, ¶ 6, 785 N.W.2d 211, we discussed the parameters of juvenile court jurisdiction:

The parameters of a juvenile court's jurisdiction are set forth in N.D.C.C. § 27–20–03(1), which states in relevant part: “The juvenile court has exclusive original jurisdiction of the following proceedings, which are governed by [N.D.C.C. ch. 27–20]: a. Proceedings in which a child is alleged to be delinquent, unruly, or deprived;....” Further, a “ ‘[c]hild’ means an individual who is ... [u]nder the age of twenty years with respect to a delinquent act committed while under the age of eighteen years.” N.D.C.C. § 27–20–02(4)(b). Under N.D.C.C. § 27–20–36(6), “when the child attains the age of twenty years, all orders affecting the child then in force terminate and the child is discharged from further obligation or control.” Section 27–20–37(1)(b), N.D.C.C., provides that “[a]n order of the court must be set aside if: ... [t]he court lacked jurisdiction over a necessary party or of the subject matter.”

In M.W. II, at ¶ 7, it was “undisputed that M.W. was 20 years old at the time the juvenile court entered its order transferring counts four and five of the amended petition to the district court, and he was under 18 at the time of the alleged delinquent act.” We concluded that “[o]nce M.W. turned 20 years old, the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. ch. 27–20 to enter a valid order regarding M.W.” Id. We therefore vacated the juvenile court's order because the order, filed four days after M.W. had turned twenty years old, was void. Id.; see N.D.C.C. §§ 27–20–36(6), 27–20–37(1)(b). Under N.D.C.C. § 27–20–02(4)(b), a “ ‘[c]hild’ means an individual who is ... [u]nder the age of twenty years with respect to a delinquent act committed while under the age of eighteen years.” Thus, in determining whether the district court has jurisdiction in this case, Woodrow had ceased to be a “child” for purposes of N.D.C.C. ch. 27–20.

[¶ 10] Here, N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(5), plainly states that no “child” subject to juvenile court jurisdiction may be prosecuted, unless the case has been transferred in accordance with the section. However, N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(8), in granting the district court original and exclusive jurisdiction, refers to “a person” at least twenty years of age. Therefore, construing N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(5) and (8) together, we conclude that when a defendant ceases to be a “child,” as the term is defined under N.D.C.C. ch. 27–20, and charges are brought in the district court, N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(8) governs the district court's exercise of jurisdiction, so long as the specific statutory requirements noted above are met.

B

[¶ 11] The State argues that the district court has jurisdiction under N.D.C.C. § 27–20–34(8), because Woodrow has reached twenty years of age, he committed all five alleged offenses while he was a child, he was not adjudicated for the offenses in the juvenile court, and the State has not intentionally delayed prosecution to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction. At the outset, we note it is undisputed that the first two elements have been met. The issues are whether Woodrow was “adjudicated” for the offenses in the juvenile court and whether the State “intentionally delayed prosecution” to avoid juvenile court jurisdiction. The district court, however, made no findings and provided no explanation on how it decided that it lacked jurisdiction.

[¶ 12] The State argues Woodrow has not been “adjudicated” for the offenses, because the juvenile court had not adjudicated him delinquent for the offenses. Woodrow argues, however, that a broader definition of adjudication is necessary because charges were brought in the juvenile court and two transfer hearings were held which determined “probable cause,” which constitutes adjudication for purposes of the statute. The State responds that N.D.C.C. ch. 27–20 does not define “adjudication,” but there are numerous references to “adjudication of delinquency” throughout the chapter which mean there must be a judicial determination that a delinquent act was committed. See, e.g., N.D.C.C. §§ 27–20–20.1(6)(b), 27–20–27(2), and 27–20–51(4), (5).

[¶ 13] Although “adjudication” is not defined in N.D.C.C. ch. 27–20, “adjudication” has been defined as: “1. The legal process of resolving a dispute; the process of judicially deciding a case. 2. JUDGMENT.” Black's Law Dictionary 47 (9th ed.2009). Further, in In re T.A.S., 62 S.W.3d 650, 658 (Mo.Ct.App.2001), the court defined “adjudication” as follows:

The dictionary definition of “adjudication” is “the act or process of adjudicating.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary 27 (1971). The verb “adjudicate” means “to settle finally (the rights and duties of the parties to a court case) on the merits of issues raised: enter on the records of a court (a final judgment, order, or decree of sentence).” Id. Thus, an “adjudication” is the act or process of settling finally the rights and duties of the parties to a court case.

(Emphasis added.) See also In re M.A.V., 88 S.W.3d 327, 329–30 (Tex.Ct.App.2002) (transfer hearing was not an adjudicatory trial because the subject of the inquiry was not the child's guilt or innocence, but rather whether there was “probable cause” to believe the child committed the offense and whether criminal proceedings were required based on the alleged offense's seriousness or the child's background).

[¶ 14] Several courts have also held other types...