State v. Greenberg

• Citation: 951 A.2d 481
• Decision Date: 10 July 2008
• Docket Number: No. 2007-371-M.P.,No. 2008-36-C.A.,No. 2008-38-M.P.,No. 2008-6-M.P.,2008-36-C.A.,2008-6-M.P.,2008-38-M.P.,2007-371-M.P.
• Parties: STATE v. Ryan GREENBERG. State v. Harold Chartier et al. Harold Chartier et al. v. State.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

951 A.2d 481

STATE v. Ryan GREENBERG.

State v. Harold Chartier et al.

Harold Chartier et al. v. State.

No. 2008-36-C.A.

No. 2008-6-M.P.

No. 2008-38-M.P.

No. 2007-371-M.P.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

July 10, 2008.

Aaron Weisman, Esq., Providence, for State.

William DiMitri, Esq., for Ryan Greenberg.

Barbara Hurst, Esq., Providence, for Harold Chartier et al.

Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, SUTTELL, and ROBINSON, JJ.

OPINION

Justice GOLDBERG, for the Court.

This case came before the Supreme Court on May 13, 2008, on appeal, as well as on a petition for writ of certiorari, filed by the State of Rhode Island (state), and on a cross-petition for certiorari filed by the defendant, Ryan Greenberg (Greenberg),¹ and on certiorari from the District Court in the cases of Chartier v. State and State v. Chartier, in which the state and Harold Chartier (Chartier) sought review of a District Court order that purportedly transferred to the Family Court all pending misdemeanor complaints that were filed against juveniles from July 1, 2007 through November 8, 2007.²

Both Greenberg and the state seek review of a Superior Court decision and order that directed the indictment against Greenberg, charging him with murder in the second degree, be held in abeyance pending a waiver of jurisdiction hearing in Family Court.³ Both Greenberg and Chartier (collectively defendants) were seventeen-years-old at the time of the alleged offenses; they are among numerous juveniles who have been referred to as "gap kids," based on their status as minors who initially were charged with criminal offenses that would have been cognizable in Family Court as wayward or delinquent offenses if they had been filed before July 1, 2007, or after November 8, 2007. Ryan Greenberg was charged by way of grand jury indictment, with murder in the second degree as well as with additional felony and misdemeanor offenses, and Harold Chartier was charged in District Court with simple assault. These cases were consolidated for decision by this Court.

For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm in part and vacate in part. We affirm that portion of the Superior Court decision and order that directed the indictment against Greenberg be held in abeyance pending a hearing in the Family Court and a decision by a justice of that court deciding whether the Family Court will waive its jurisdiction over him. We affirm that part of the District Court decision and order directing the misdemeanor case of Chartier be transferred to the Family Court and vacate that portion of the decision and order declaring that the District Court will entertain motions to transfer to the Family Court any case in which a final judgment has entered. We remand these cases to the Superior Court and District Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.

Facts and Travel

These consolidated cases involve seventeen-year-old children who were charged with committing criminal offenses between July 1, 2007, and November 8, 2007. The genesis of this saga is an amendment to G.L.1956 § 14-1-6⁴ that became effective July 1, 2007 (July Amendment)⁵ and purported to divest the Family Court of jurisdiction over offenses alleged to have been committed by these young people. It was short-lived. The motivation behind the amendment was fiscal — to save money by conferring jurisdiction on the Superior Court or District Court over seventeen-year-olds who were accused of acts that would be considered felony or misdemeanor offenses if committed by an adult. Under the July Amendment, a seventeen-year-old who was convicted of a felony would face incarceration in the Adult Correctional Institutions instead of the Rhode Island Training School. The record is devoid of any legislative findings that this amendment constituted sound social policy, that it was in the best interests of the juvenile offenders to whom it would apply, or that it was a prudent fiscal measure.

Almost immediately, the Senate moved to undo the amendment and avoid the potential social cost to the state's seventeen-year-olds by passing Senate Bill 2007-S 1141, an act that restored jurisdiction over seventeen-year-old offenders to the Family Court. However, the House of Representatives recessed before it could take up the Senate's measure. It was not until October 30, 2007, that the House enacted a different act that also was passed by the Senate and sent to the Governor.⁶ The act became law without the Governor's signature on November 8, 2007 (November Amendment).⁷ This enactment did little to clarify the resulting jurisdictional quagmire.

The cases before us concern juveniles who were arrested and charged with criminal offenses between July 1, 2007, and November 8, 2007 — that gap period when seventeen-year-olds were treated as adult offenders. According to the parties, numerous juveniles were arrested and prosecuted in the District Court for misdemeanors, and some, but not all, of those cases resulted in final judgments before the effective date of the November Amendment. Although many juveniles apparently were arrested for felony offenses during this interregnum, the only indictment before us at present is that of Greenberg, who was arraigned in Superior Court after the statute was amended in November. However, we are aware that some juveniles may have been arraigned on indictments or criminal informations before the November Amendment, while others were not.

Both amendments were challenged in the Superior and District Courts on constitutional grounds. A Superior Court trial justice found that the legislation did not violate the state or federal constitutions, but he also ruled that the Family Court retained original jurisdiction over Greenberg and similarly situated juveniles. The trial justice determined that the July Amendment did not modify the jurisdictional prerequisites set forth in title 14 of the General Laws, entitled "Delinquent and Dependent Children." He concluded that the state was required to file a petition in the Family Court seeking a waiver of jurisdiction in order for Greenberg to be "referred to the court which would have had jurisdiction over the offense if it had been committed by an adult." See July Amendment (P.L.2007, ch. 73, art. 22, § 1). The trial justice also ordered that any criminal informations and complaints that were pending in the Superior Court be dismissed, but any indictments, including the indictment against Ryan Greenberg, were to be held in abeyance pending waiver hearings in the Family Court.

In the Chartier case, on the other hand, a District Court trial judge ordered that all misdemeanor complaints filed with respect to any juvenile during the relevant period and pending in the District Court be transferred to the Family Court. Additionally, with respect to any adjudicated misdemeanor case in which the sentence was not completed, the District Court judge declared that he would entertain and grant, on an individual basis, motions to transfer those cases to the Family Court. The trial judge appeared to base his decision on § 14-1-28, which requires the immediate transfer to the Family Court of any case in which it is ascertained that the accused was under the age of eighteen at the time of the alleged offense.

Moreover, without any citations to authority, the trial judge in the District Court also grounded his decision on the disparate treatment of juvenile offenders that was based solely on the date of the offense. The District Court judge found that different prosecutions and punishments for juveniles based on when they were arrested — either before or after the November Amendment — created an impermissible classification.

This Court is confronted with the task of developing a framework to deal with these issues.

Standard of Review

Our review of a case on certiorari is limited to an examination of "the record to determine if an error of law has been committed." Gaumond v. Trinity Repertory Co., 909 A.2d 512, 516 (R.I.2006) (quoting City of Providence v. S & J 351, Inc., 693 A.2d 665, 667 (R.I.1997)). "We do not weigh the evidence on certiorari, but only conduct our review to examine questions of law raised in the petition." Malachowski v. State, 877 A.2d 649, 653 (R.I.2005) (quoting Jeff Anthony Properties v. Zoning Board of Review of North Providence, 853 A.2d 1226, 1229 (R.I. 2004)).

"When reviewing an appeal based on an alleged error of law, this Court employs a de novo review to determine whether the trial justice committed legal error." State v. Jennings, 944 A.2d 171, 173 (R.I.2008) (citing Children's Friend & Service v. St. Paul Fire Marine Insurance Co., 893 A.2d 222, 229 (R.I.2006)).

This Court also reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Henderson v. Henderson, 818 A.2d 669, 673 (R.I.2003) (citing Pier House Inn, Inc. v. 421 Corp., 812 A.2d 799, 804 (R.I.2002)). "The construction of legislative enactments is a matter reserved for the courts, * * * and, as final arbiter on questions of construction, it is this court's responsibility in interpreting a legislative enactment to determine and effectuate the Legislature's intent and to attribute to the enactment the meaning most consistent with its policies or obvious purposes." Brennan v. Kirby, 529 A.2d 633, 637 (R.I.1987) (citing Fruit Growers Express Co. v. Norberg, 471 A.2d 628, 630 (R.I.1984) and Gryguc v. Bendick, 510 A.2d 937, 939 (R.I.1986)). In accomplishing this task, we examine "the language, nature, and object of the statute[,]" to glean the intent of the Legislature. State v. Pelz, 765 A.2d 824, 829-30 (R.I.2001) (quoting Howard Union of Teachers v. State, 478 A.2d 563, 565 (R.I. 1984)). When confronted with an issue of statutory construction, we "look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language." Henderson, 818 A.2d at 673 (citing Fleet National Bank v. Clark, 714 A.2d 1172, 1177 (R.I.1998)). "`If the language is clear on its face, then the plain...