State v. Burns

• Citation: 670 A.2d 851,236 Conn. 18
• Decision Date: 06 February 1996
• Docket Number: No. 15294,15294
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Charles J. BURNS.
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

Page 851

670 A.2d 851

236 Conn. 18

STATE of Connecticut v. Charles J. BURNS.

No. 15294.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Nov. 30, 1995.

Decided Feb. 6, 1996.

James A. Killen, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, State's Attorney, and Alfred Baldwin, Assistant State's Attorney, for appellant (State).

Donald D. Dakers, Special Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, was David B. Bachman, Special Public Defender, for appellee (defendant).

Before PETERS, C.J., and BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.

PETERS, Chief Justice.

The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether General Statutes § 14-227a(h)(3), ¹ which imposes enhanced penalties on a third time violator of the laws against the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, is triggered by the occurrence of a third violation within five years of a prior conviction, or by the occurrence of a third conviction within that five year period. The defendant, Charles J. Burns, was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a(a)(1) and with being a third time offender of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of § 14-227a(h)(3). ² After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs. The trial court denied his subsequent motion to dismiss the charge of being a third time offender. The defendant then entered a plea of nolo contendere to that charge, conditioned on his right to take an appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a and Practice Book § 4003. ³ The Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court. State v. Burns, 38 Conn.App. 8, 658 A.2d 163 (1995). We granted the state's petition for certification, limited to the issue of whether a third conviction, as opposed to a third violation, must occur within the five year period set forth in § 14-227a(h) in order to apply the third time offender penalty in that provision. ⁴ We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

As the Appellate Court observed, "[t]he facts underlying this appeal are not in dispute. On July 20, 1993, the defendant was arrested and charged with reckless driving and operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor or drugs. On March 1, 1994, the state filed an amended second part of the information, charging the defendant as a third time offender subject to the enhanced penalties of § 14-227a(h)(3).

"On March 14, 1994, a jury found the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor or drugs. The defendant moved to dismiss the amended second part of the information against him on March 23, 1994. In support of this motion, the defendant alleged that his prior convictions occurred on October 13 and 28, 1988, and that both convictions, therefore, had occurred more than five years before his present conviction." Id. at 10-11, 658 A.2d 163.

The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss because it construed § 14-227a(h)(3) to impose enhanced penalties whenever a third violation, rather than a third conviction, occurs within the five year period. Finding no ambiguity in the statutory language, the trial court reasoned that interpreting the five year period as running to the date of a third conviction would be inconsistent with the statute's legislative history and would lead to bizarre consequences that the legislature could not have intended. The Appellate Court concluded to the contrary on the basis of its determination that § 14-227a(h)(3) "expressly and unambiguously ... requires the five year period to run from conviction to conviction." Id., 12. We granted the state's petition for certification to resolve this important issue of statutory construction.

The state claims that the language of § 14-227a(h)(3) unambiguously indicates that a third violation must occur within five years of a prior conviction. In the alternative, the state claims that, if we were to conclude that the statutory language is ambiguous, then the legislative history of § 14-227a(h)(3) supports its interpretation and an alternate construction of the statute would lead to bizarre results that the legislature could not have intended.

The defendant claims, to the contrary, that the language of § 14-227a(h)(3) unambiguously indicates that a third conviction must occur within the five year period. In the alternative, the defendant claims that if we were to conclude that § 14-227a(h)(3) is ambiguous, then the rule of lenity would require us to interpret the statute in his favor. We agree with the state.

Our interpretation of § 14-227a(h)(3) "is guided by well established principles of statutory construction. Statutory construction is a question of law and therefore our review is plenary.... [O]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature.... In seeking to discern that intent, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Spears, 234 Conn. 78, 86- 87, 662 A.2d 80 (1995); Murchison v. Civil Service Commission, 234 Conn. 35, 45, 660 A.2d 850 (1995); State v. Metz, 230 Conn. 400, 409, 645 A.2d 965 (1994). If "a statute is capable of two constructions, one that is rational and effective in accomplishing the evident legislative object, and the other leading to 'bizarre results' destructive of that purpose, the former should prevail." State v. Williams, 206 Conn. 203, 210, 536 A.2d 583 (1988). Nonetheless, "unless a contrary interpretation would frustrate an evident legislative intent, criminal statutes are governed by the fundamental principle that such statutes are strictly construed against the state." State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 200, 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1133, 130 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1995); see State v. Anderson, 227 Conn. 518, 527, 631 A.2d 1149 (1993); State v. Russell, 218 Conn. 273, 278, 588 A.2d 1376 (1991).

After reviewing the language of § 14-227a(h)(3), we conclude that the statute does not unambiguously dictate whether the five year period that is the predicate for an enhanced penalty runs from a prior conviction to a third violation or from a prior conviction to a third conviction. The relevant statutory language provides such an enhanced penalty "for conviction of a third violation within five years after a prior conviction for the same offense...." The problem arises out of the latent ambiguity in the phrase "for conviction of a third violation." If emphasis is placed on the word "conviction," then the defendant's contention that the period runs from conviction to conviction appears plausible. If emphasis is placed on the word "violation," however, the state's contention appears plausible.

This latent ambiguity in the statute cannot readily be resolved by recourse to established rules of English grammar and statutory construction. These rules indicate that a modifier is presumed to modify the term immediately preceding it. See LaProvidenza v. State Employees' Retirement Commission, 178 Conn. 23, 27, 420 A.2d 905 (1979); 2A J. Sutherland, Statutory Construction (5th Ed.1992) § 47.33. On the one hand, the modifying phrase "within five years after a prior conviction" appears to modify the term immediately preceding it, "violation." This analysis suggests that the relevant period runs from a prior conviction to a third violation. On the other hand, the phrase "of a third violation" modifies the term immediately preceding it, or "conviction." The latter analysis suggests that a third conviction must occur within the relevant five year period.

Unable to derive guidance from the plain language of § 14-227a(h)(3), we must look to other tools of statutory interpretation to inform our analysis of the proper construction of the statute. These tools include an inquiry into the legislative history of a statute and into the purpose the statute was designed to further. With respect to the statute before us, the legislative history is not illuminating, ⁵ but the legislature's purpose in undertaking its enactment requires the conclusion that the relevant period runs to a third violation. "To determine legislative intent, it is often useful to examine the title of a proposed bill ... and the purpose the legislature intended to accomplish by its enactment.... Significantly, Public Acts 1985, No. 85-387, which amended § 14-227a in 1985 to incorporate the language at issue in this case, was entitled 'An Act Increasing Imprisonment Penalties for Drunk Driving to Meet the Federal Standards.' ... [T]his provision was part of a statutory package that enhanced mandatory minimum sentences for both first and multiple offenders and increased penalties for each successive offense. In enacting Public Acts 1985, No. 85-387 so as to amend § 14-227a, the legislature clearly intended to provide harsher penalties for offenders with a history of driving while under the influence" of intoxicating liquor or drugs and to harmonize our law with federal standards. ⁶ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mattioli, 210 Conn. 573, 577-78, 556 A.2d 584 (1989); ⁷ see 28 S.Proc., Pt. 12, 1985 Sess., p. 3948, remarks of Senator Richard B. Johnston; 28 H.R.Proc., Pt. 19, 1985 Sess., p. 7029, remarks of Representative Thomas J. Dudchik.

Because the legislature's overall goal in enacting § 14-227a(h)(3) was unambiguous, we are persuaded that the phrase "for conviction of a third violation within five years after a prior conviction for...