Russell C., In re

• Decision Date: 21 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-398,79-398
• Citation: 120 N.H. 260,414 A.2d 934
• Parties: In re RUSSELL C.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 934

414 A.2d 934

120 N.H. 260

In re RUSSELL C.

No. 79-398.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

April 21, 1980.

Thomas D. Rath, Atty. Gen. (Betsy S. Westgate, Derry, attorney, orally), for the State.

Smith, Currier, Connor, Wilder & Lieberman, P. A., Nashua (Jeffrey A. Zall, Nashua, orally), for defendant.

Nancy J. Geiger, Merrimack County Juvenile Advocate, Penacook, and Peter Stern, by brief, as amicus curiae.

BOIS, Justice.

This is an interlocutory appeal raising the issue of the statutory right to a "speedy trial" in the context of a juvenile proceeding. Harkaway, J. transferred without ruling this and other issues raised in the defendant's motion to dismiss because of their "general importance in the administration of juvenile justice throughout the State." We hold that RSA 169-B:14 II (Supp.1979) and RSA 169-D:13 II (Supp.1979) create a statutory right to speedy adjudication hearings wherein a juvenile is alleged to be "delinquent" or a "child in need of services," and remand.

On September 14, 1979, two juvenile petitions were filed in Nashua district court, alleging that the juvenile, Russell C., had in his possession marijuana, in violation of RSA 318-B:2 (Supp.1979), and alcoholic beverages, in violation of RSA 175:8-a (Supp.1979). The initial arraignment and appearance was held on both petitions on October 2, 1979. Pantelas, J. ordered the juvenile released to the custody of his parents pending final disposition of the case, and scheduled the adjudicatory hearing for November 7, 1979. The issues raised by the juvenile's subsequent motion to dismiss were transferred here on November 20, 1979.

The juvenile first argues that the petitions were fatally defective for failure to specify whether he was alleged to be "delinquent" or "in need of supervision." Both petitions contained the statutory provisions violated as well as the necessary supporting facts, but failed to mark the appropriate box on the preprinted juvenile petition form, indicating whether the juvenile was:

( ) a delinquent child ( ) person in need of supervision ( ) a neglected child.

The purpose of a juvenile petition is to give the juvenile and his parents adequate notice of the substance of the proceedings. It is similar in this regard to a criminal complaint or indictment, and will be considered adequate if it informs the juvenile of the nature and cause of the accusation with sufficient definiteness to enable him to prepare for the proceeding. See State v. Fields, 119 N.H. ---, ---, 400 A.2d 1175, 1177 (1979). The petition will generally give sufficient notice to the juvenile when the charge follows the language of the statute and alleges all the necessary elements of the offense. See State v. Manchester News Co., 118 N.H. 255, 257, 387 A.2d 324, 327 (1978), appeal dismissed, 439 U.S. 949, 99 S.Ct. 343, 58 L.Ed.2d 340 (1978).

Failure to specify whether the defendant was alleged to be delinquent or in need of supervision did not prejudice him here. The definitions of "delinquent" under RSA 169-B:2 II (Supp.1979) and "child in need of services" under RSA 169-D:2 IV (Supp.1979) do not overlap. It is clear that a juvenile petition alleging possession of marijuana under RSA 318-B:2 (Supp.1979) is a delinquency petition because such an offense is "a felony or misdemeanor under the criminal code of this state if committed by an adult . . . ." RSA 169-B:2 II (Supp.1979). It is similarly clear that a juvenile petition alleging possession of alcohol under RSA 175:8-a (Supp.1979) is a petition alleging a child is in need of services because such possession by a person under the age of twenty years, would be a violation under the criminal code of this state. RSA 169-D:2 IV (Supp.1979). The petitions were therefore not fatally defective in this regard because they did not mislead or prejudice the juvenile in any way. However, we strongly recommend that printed petition forms hereafter be fully completed or not used at all, in order to avoid unnecessary litigation.

The juvenile also argues that the petitions were fatally defective because they failed to allege that he was in need of counseling, supervision, treatment or rehabilitation. The statutes defining "delinquent" and "child in need of services" include substantially similar requirements that the juvenile so adjudged be expressly found to be in need of counselling, supervision treatment or rehabilitation. We are of the opinion that the absence of specific allegations to that effect is not a fatal defect. The petitions alleged that the juvenile acted in such a manner as to "endanger his health or morals," and alleged the offenses charged and supporting facts with sufficient clarity to enable him to prepare for the juvenile proceedings without prejudice.

The principal issue we address is whether the petition must be dismissed if the adjudicatory hearing is not held within the times specified by the following statutes.

RSA 169-B:14 II (Supp.1979) (delinquent children) provides:

The adjudicatory hearing shall be held within 21 days of arraignment for minors detained pending such hearing and within 30 days of arraignment for minors not detained.

(Emphasis added.)

RSA 169-D:13 II (Supp.1979) (children in need of services) provides:

The adjudicatory hearing shall be held within 21 days of the initial appearance.

(Emphasis added.)

An appearance and arraignment was held on the juvenile petitions at issue on October 2, 1979, at which time the court released the juvenile to the custody of his parents and set the adjudicatory hearing for November 7, 1979. Although the petitions failed to classify the juvenile as either "delinquent" or "in need of services," the date set for the adjudicatory hearing was clearly outside the time limits prescribed by both RSA 169-B:14 II (Supp.1979) and RSA 169-D:13 II (Supp.1979).

The State argues that the use of the word "shall" in RSA 169-B:14 II (Supp.1979) and RSA 169-D:13 II (Supp.1979) is intended to be directory and not mandatory. While conceding that the statutory provisions "appear to set mandatory time limits on the holding of the adjudicatory hearing," the State argues that a literal interpretation would be inconsistent with the purpose of the statutes. It further argues that the statutorily prescribed time limits are procedural and not jurisdictional in nature, and that a failure to comply is procedural error not requiring reversal absent a miscarriage of justice. We disagree.

The use of the word "shall" is generally regarded as a command; although not controlling, it is significant as indicating the intent that the statute is mandatory. Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490, 493, 55 S.Ct. 818, 819, 79 L.Ed. 1566 (1935); E. Crawford, Statutory Construction § 262 (1940); see 2A Sutherland, Statutory Construction 57.03 (4th ed. C. Sands 1973); accord, United States v. Sanchez, 574 F.2d 505, 507 (10th Cir. 1978). This is especially so where the purpose of the statute is to protect private rights. Escoe v. Zerbst, supra at 494; see, e. g., South Carolina Wildlife Fed. v. Alexander, 457 F.Supp. 118, 130 (D.S.C.1978). We will give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in a statute, Corson v. Brown Products, Inc., 119 N.H. 20, 23, 397 A.2d 640, 642 (1979), unless such an interpretation would lead to an absurd, State v. Slayton, 116 N.H. 613, 615, 367 A.2d 575, 577 (1976), unjust, In re Sargent, 116 N.H. 77, 82, 354 A.2d 404, 407 (1976), or illogical result. State v. Kay, 115 N.H. 696, 698-99, 350 A.2d 336, 338 (1975). We will not give the language its literal meaning if it appears from the context of the statute that a different meaning was intended, Town of Londonderry v. Faucher, 112 N.H. 454, 457, 299 A.2d 581, 583 (1972), or if to do so would be inconsistent with the general purpose of the statute. Blais v. Town of Goffstown, 119 N.H. ---, ---, 406 A.2d 295, 297 (1979). Accordingly, we first examine the purpose of the statutes at issue, and the consequences of interpreting the word "shall" in its ordinary sense.

RSA ch. 169-B (Supp.1979) and RSA ch. 169-D (Supp.1979) were enacted as part of Laws 1979, ch. 361, which was a comprehensive reorganization of RSA ch. 169, the statute dealing with abused, neglected and delinquent children, and children in need of services. RSA 169-B:1 (Supp.1979) and RSA 169-D:1 (Supp.1979) provide explicit guidance with regard to the purpose and applicability of those chapters. RSA 169-B:1 (Supp.1979) provides in pertinent part This chapter shall be liberally interpreted, construed and administered to effectuate the following purposes and policies:

I. To encourage the wholesome moral, mental, emotional and physical development of each minor . . . , by providing him with the protection, care, treatment, counselling, supervision, and rehabilitative resources which he needs and has a right to receive;

II. Consistent with the protection of the public interest, to remove from a minor committing a delinquency offense the taint of criminality and the penal consequences of criminal behavior . . .;

III. To achieve the foregoing . . . , whenever possible, by keeping a minor in contact with his home community and in a family environment . . .; and

IV. To provide effective judicial procedures through which the provisions of this chapter are executed and enforced and which recognize and enforce the constitutional and other rights of the parties and assures them a fair hearing.

The objectives outlined in RSA 169-D:1 (Supp.1979) are similarly focused:

I. To recognize that certain behaviors . . . indicate that a child is experiencing serious difficulties and is in need of services to provide him with the treatment, care, guidance, counselling, discipline, supervision, and rehabilitation necessary to assist him in becoming a responsible and productive member of society;

II. To recognize that . . . parents must be made aware of their contribution to . . . and . . . role in the solution of the...