State v. Morris, C.A. No. P2-2009-2087A (R.I. Super 1/11/2010)

• Decision Date: 11 January 2010
• Docket Number: C.A. No. P2-2009-2087A.
• Parties: STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, v. WAYNE MORRIS.
• Court: Rhode Island Superior Court

Page 1

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, v. WAYNE MORRIS.

C.A. No. P2-2009-2087A.

Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, S.C.

Filed January 11, 2010.

DECISION

CARNES, J.

Before this Court is Defendant Wayne Morris' ("Defendant") motion pursuant to Rule 9.1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Superior Court of Rhode Island ("Rule 9.1")¹ seeking to dismiss Count I of the Criminal Information for failure to register as a sex offender in violation of G.L. 1956 §§ 11-37.1-3 and 11-37.1-4. Defendant maintains that the Criminal Information fails to demonstrate the existence of probable cause to believe that the offense charged has been committed or that the Defendant committed it. For the reasons set forth below, this Court denies Defendant's Rule 9.1 motion to dismiss.

FACTS AND TRAVEL

After a review of the facts proffered and consideration of the arguments presented in memoranda and oral argument, this Court makes the following findings of fact. On May 11, 2009, Defendant was detained for a narcotics violation at the Kennedy Plaza police substation located in Providence, Rhode Island. A preliminary inquiry by the Providence Police Department indicated that Defendant was a registered sex offender in Massachusetts, but not in Rhode Island. Consequently, the matter was assigned to an investigator, who confirmed Defendant as a registered Level II sex offender in Massachusetts based on information provided by both the National Crime Information Center and the Massachusetts Sex Offender Registry Board (the "Board"). The Board informed the investigator that Defendant's sex offender status carried a lifetime registration requirement, and that Defendant was not in compliance with his registration obligations in Massachusetts. The investigator also confirmed Defendant had been residing at a Providence residential address since at least July of 2008, and was not registered as a sex offender in Providence.

Subsequent to the arrest, the Providence Police Department obtained from the Board a "Registration/Change of Address/Annual Registration" form listing Defendant's Massachusetts residential address as of June 5, 2006 ("Registration Form"). The Department also acquired a "Judgment and Probation/Commitment Order," dated April 21, 1982 and issued by the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island (the "Order"). The Order indicates that Defendant had been convicted on said date of the offense of transporting and facilitating "the movement of women and minors in interstate commerce for the purpose of prostitution and conspiracy in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423(a)(1)(2)² and Title 18, United States Code, Section 371."

Based on the investigation and information obtained by the Providence Police Department, Defendant was charged with failing to register as a sex offender in violation of §§ 11-37.1-3 and 11-37.1-4, having been convicted of an offense that requires registration. On September 10, 2009, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 9.1, arguing that Defendant's 1982 Mann Act conviction does not subject him to the registration requirements of Rhode Island's Sexual Offender Registration and Community Notification Act. G.L. 1956 § 11-37.1-1 et seq. The State of Rhode Island (the "State") objects and asserts that Defendant's prior conviction triggers registration obligations under the Registration Act.

ANALYSIS

"When addressing a motion to dismiss a Criminal Information pursuant to Rule 9.1, a [Superior Court] justice is required to examine the Information and any attached exhibits to determine whether the State has satisfied its burden to establish probable cause to believe that the offense charged was committed and that the Defendant committed it." State v. Martini, 860 A.2d 689, 691 (R.I. 2004) (quoting State v. Fritz, 801 A.2d 679, 682 (R.I. 2002)) (citing State v. Aponte, 649 A.2d 219, 222 (R.I. 1994) and G.L. 1956 § 12-12-1.7; Rule 9.1). "The probable cause standard applied to a Motion to Dismiss is the same as the one that is applied to determine the propriety of an arrest." State v. Reed, 764 A.2d 144, 146 (R.I. 2001) (citing Aponte, 649 A.2d at 222). "Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the police officer's knowledge and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient to warrant a reasonable person's belief that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested has committed the crime." Id. (citing State v. Jenison, 442 A.2d 866, 873-74 (R.I. 1982)).

It is well settled that when the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the court must interpret the statute literally and must give the words of the statute their plain and ordinary meanings. Martini, 860 A.2d at 691 (citing State v. DiCicco, 707 A.2d 251, 253 (R.I. 1998)). When the meaning of a criminal statute is ambiguous, however, the statute must be strictly construed in favor of the party upon whom a penalty is to be imposed. State v. Oliveira, 882 A.2d 1097, 1110 (R.I. 2005) (citing State v. Smith, 766 A.2d 913, 924 (R.I. 2001)) (quoting State v. Bryant, 670 A.2d 776, 779 (R.I. 1996)). The defendant must "be given the benefit of any reasonable doubt as to whether the act charged is within the meaning of [a penal] statute." Oliveira, 882 A.2d at 1110 (citing State v. DelBonis, 862 A.2d 760, 766 (R.I. 2004)) (quoting State v. Amaro, 448 A.2d 1257, 1259 (R.I. 1982)). Nevertheless, this Court "will not impose a straitjacket upon the statutory language if to do so would thwart a clear legislative intent." State v. Dussault, 121 R.I. 751, 753-54, 403 A.2d 244, 246 (1979) (citing DeFusco v. Brophy, 112 R.I. 461, 464, 311 A.2d 286, 288 (1973); State v. Milne, 95 R.I. 315, 320, 187 A.2d 136, 139 (1962)).

"[T]he primary object of the [C]ourt is to ascertain the legislative intention from a consideration of the legislation in its entirety, viewing the language used therein in the light, nature, and purpose of the enactment thereof." Smith, 766 A.2d at 924 (quoting Mason v. Bowerman Bros., Inc., 95 R.I. 425, 431, 187 A.2d 772, 776 (1963) (citations omitted)). In so construing the statute at issue, this Court is adhering to the "fairest and most rational method" of interpreting laws as set forth by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries of 1758. In re Advisory to the Governor (Judicial Nominating Comm'n), 668 A.2d 1246, 1248-49 (R.I. 1996); 1 Sharswood's Blackstone's Commentaries, Laws of England 58 (1860). Blackstone described five "signs" that constitute "the most natural and probable" guides to the will of a legislature and are revealed by means of:

"[w]ords . . . understood in their usual and most known signification [and in] their general and popular use. . . . If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context. . . . As to the subject matter, words are always to be understood as having a regard thereto . . . [with] expressions directed to that end. . . . As to the effects and consequence, the rule is, that where words bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them. . . . But, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law . . . is by considering the reason and spirit of it." Commentaries, at 58-60; In re Advisory, 668 A.2d at 1249.

In interpreting a legislative enactment, it is incumbent upon the Court "to determine and effectuate the Legislature's intent and to attribute to the enactment the meaning most consistent with its policies or obvious purposes." State v. Flores, 714 A.2d 581, 583 (R.I. 1998) (quoting Brennan v. Kirby, 529 A.2d 633, 637 (R.I. 1987)). In so doing, "[t]his Court will not construe a statute to reach an absurd result." Id. (quoting Kaya v. Partington, 681 A.2d 256, 261 (R.I. 1996)). Furthermore, an ambiguous statute should not be interpreted in a manner that will defeat its underlying purpose. See Town of Burrillville v. Pascoag Apartment Associates, LLC., 950 A.2d 435 at 446 (R.I. 2008).

The registration of sex offenders in Rhode Island is governed by the Sexual Offender Registration and Community Notification Act (the "Registration Act"). G.L. 1956 § 11-37.1-1 et seq. Section 3(a) of the Act describes persons who must register as sex offenders, and reads as follows:

Registration required — Persons covered. — (a) Any person who, in this or any other jurisdiction: (1) has been convicted of a criminal offense against a victim who is a minor, (2) has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, (3) has been determined to be a sexually violent predator, (4) has committed an aggravated offense as defined in § 11-37.1-2, or (5) is a recidivist, as defined in § 11-37.1-4, shall be required to register his or her current address with the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction over the city or town in which the person having the duty to register resides for the time period specified in § 11-37.1-4.

Subsection (d), added in 2006, addresses the registration of sex offenders who move to Rhode Island from another state:

(d) If a person is registered as a sex offender in another state for an offense which, if committed within the jurisdiction of this state, would require the person to register as a sex offender, then that person, upon moving to or returning to this state, shall register as a sex offender in the same manner as if the offense were committed within Rhode Island. § 11-37.1-3(d).

The language of § 11-37.1-3(d) indicates that a person's sex offender status in another jurisdiction does not automatically trigger registration requirements in Rhode Island. Such obligations are imposed if a person is registered in another state "for an offense which, if committed within the jurisdiction of this state, would require the person to register as a sex offender." § 11-37.1-3(d) (emphasis added). Thus, in order to be subject to registration...