Such v. State
| Decision Date | 26 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2007-21-Appeal.,2007-21-Appeal. |
| Citation | 950 A.2d 1150 |
| Parties | Theodore H. SUCH, Jr. et al. v. STATE of Rhode Island et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Richard S. Humphrey, Tiverton, for Plaintiff Theodore Such.
John B. Harwood, for Plaintiff Eric Ahlborg.
Michael Field, for Defendant.
Present: WILLIAMS, C.J., GOLDBERG, FLAHERTY, and SUTTELL, JJ.
Justice SUTTELL, for the Court.
"If you like laws and sausage, you should never watch either one being made."1 Otto von Bismark's laconic observation is apropos to this appeal in which we are asked to consider two legislative acts passed in the waning days of the 2005-2006 session of the General Assembly.
The State of Rhode Island appeals from a declaratory judgment entered in favor of plaintiffs, Theodore H. Such, Jr., Eric Ahlborg, and Robert MacDonald. The central issue before us focuses on the degree and type of penalty available against persons who refuse to submit to chemical tests when law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to suspect they have been operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor or drugs.
Public Laws 2006, ch. 232 (), and P.L. 2006, ch. 246 (), were signed by the Governor two days apart and each made changes to the same statutory section, G.L. 1956 § 31-27-2.1 entitled "Refusal to submit to chemical test" (the refusal statute). Chapter 232 added language to the refusal statute that authorized increased penalties for refusal to submit to a chemical test. Chapter 246, signed two days after chapter 232, inserted a new subsection in the refusal statute that imposed a $200 assessment. P.L. 2006, ch. 246, art. 10, § 1. Chapter 246, however, did not include the newly enacted amendments to the refusal statute set forth in chapter 232; instead, it republished the refusal statute as it had existed before the enactment of chapter 232. The plaintiffs contend chapter 246 repealed the operative language in chapter 232 that imposed increased penalties for refusal to submit to a chemical test. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reverse the judgment of the Superior Court.
The sequence of legislative events is not disputed by the parties. On January 3, 2006, members of the House of Representatives introduced 2006-H 6700, the refusal bill, which proposed amendments to the refusal statute. Specifically, the refusal bill in its final form made the following changes to the refusal statute: it allowed district court judges, in addition to traffic tribunal judges, to impose penalties; the range for a license revocation increased from a span of three to six months to a span of six months to a year; second and third offenders became subject to criminal liability, increased fines, and more community service;2 and the Attorney General was required to submit information on the charging and disposition of cases brought under §§ 31-27-1 to 31-27-2.8 and report on the number of related fatalities in an Annual Impaired Driving Report. The refusal bill, designated as "2006-H 6700 Substitute B, as amended," was passed by the Senate on June 23, 2006, and by the House, in concurrence, on June 24. The House transmitted the bill to the Governor on the same day, June 24, and the Governor signed it into law on June 28, 2006.3
Meanwhile, on February 8, 2006, members of the House introduced the budget bill, 2006-H 7120, to make appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2007. The budget bill contained forty-one articles concerning many areas of state government; one of the provisions, Article 10, sought to add a new subsection to the refusal statute but otherwise left it untouched. Specifically, Article 10 reproduced the language of the refusal statute verbatim as it then existed, adding only a new subsection, § 31-27-2.1(b)(6), which said:
"In addition to any other fines and highway safety assessments, a two hundred dollar ($200) assessment shall be paid by any person found in violation of this section to support the department of health's chemical testing programs outlined in § 31-27-2(4), which shall be deposited as general revenues, not restricted receipts."
The budget bill, marked as "2006-H 7120 Substitute A," was passed by the House on June 19, 2006. The Senate passed it in concurrence on June 23, 2006, and it was transmitted to the Governor on June 29. The Governor signed the budget bill into law on June 30, and it became effective on July 1, 2006.4
The three plaintiffs in this case were stopped by police officers and suspected of operating motor vehicles under the influence. On September 25, 2006, a North Kingstown police officer stopped Theodore H. Such, Jr., and he was charged with refusing to submit to a chemical test and driving under the influence of liquor or drugs. The North Kingstown police cited the new penalties set forth in the refusal bill (chapter 232) to Mr. Such.5 On September 28, 2006, Eric Ahlborg was stopped by a Warwick police officer and subsequently charged with refusing to submit to a chemical test. Mr. Ahlborg was informed of the new penalties in the refusal bill. On October 1, 2006, Robert MacDonald was charged with refusing to submit to a chemical test by the West Warwick police, and he also was presented with the new penalties in the refusal bill.
Each plaintiff appeared before the Rhode Island Traffic Tribunal in November 2006. When Mr. Such appeared before the tribunal, the magistrate judge granted his motion to continue trial so that Mr. Such could seek a declaratory judgment and other relief in the Superior Court relating to the alleged incongruities between the budget bill and the refusal bill. In a separate proceeding, the tribunal granted similar relief to Mr. Ahlborg. Mr. MacDonald's case, by contrast, proceeded to trial, after which the magistrate judge imposed penalties authorized by the refusal statute, including a $200 fine, a $500 highway safety assessment, a six-month suspension of his license to operate,6 participation in a remedial program, and ten hours of community service.
On November 8, 2006, Mr. Such filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, equitable relief, and class action in the Superior Court. In pertinent part, Mr. Such complained that the police incorrectly presented him with the increased penalties set forth in the refusal bill. Mr. Such contended that the subsequent enactment of the budget bill negated the statutory amendments made by the refusal bill. Mr. Ahlborg and Mr. MacDonald each moved separately to intervene; the Superior Court granted their motions on December 18, 2006 and January 4, 2007, respectively.
The state and plaintiffs filed cross-motions for summary judgment.7 The plaintiffs argued that the budget bill either amended the refusal bill or implicitly repealed it such that the increased penalties in the refusal bill had no legal force after the enactment of the budget bill. The state, on the other hand, asserted that no conflict existed between the refusal bill and the budget bill and that the budget bill did not repeal the newly enacted provisions in the refusal bill.
The Superior Court heard the cross-motions for summary judgment on January 16, 2007. After oral argument, the Superior Court ruled from the bench that the budget bill and the refusal bill were "two contradictory statutes, two statutes which are not reconcilable."8 The trial justice stated that a "big mistake was made relative to this legislation" and that "it should be abundantly clear to anybody that there is great confusion here." The court explained that "someone dropped the ball" and that "it is not for this Court to speculate or guess about what was going on" with the enactment of the budget bill two days after the refusal bill. The trial justice further emphasized that the two statutes should be looked at "not from the point of view of lawyers," but from "the point of view of the people operating vehicles on our state highways who are subject to this or to these statutes[.]" So viewed, the court explained that plaintiffs, or other persons similarly situated, would be forced to speculate about possible criminal penalties if they read the budget bill and the refusal bill concurrently.
The court's ruling employed several tenets of statutory construction. The trial justice noted that the refusal bill criminalized the refusal to submit to a chemical test while the budget bill was a civil statute, and that penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of those against whom the penalty is sought to be imposed. The court further reasoned that when a conflict exists between two statutes, the last in time controls; and it also explained that the General Assembly is presumed to have intended every word or provision of a statute to express a significant meaning. Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the trial justice concluded that he could not harmonize the substantive language of the refusal bill and the budget bill. The court emphasized that the budget bill was signed into law after the refusal bill and that the budget bill reproduced the statutory language in the refusal statute as it existed before the enactment of the refusal bill. The court concluded, therefore, that the budget bill repealed the refusal bill by implication, and that the refusal bill "had vitality only until such time as the governor signed into effect the so-called [budget bill]."9 Accordingly, the Superior Court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the complaint for declaratory judgment. On January 18, 2007, the Superior Court entered a written order to the same effect.10
The Superior Court entered judgment on January 18, 2007, and the state timely appealed. On February 16, 2007, this Court granted the state's motion for stay pending appeal. Additional facts will be supplied as needed.
The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 30 of title 9, governs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Providence v. Jeremiah
...most consistent with its policies or obvious purposes." State v Robinson, 972 A.2d 150, 158 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Such v. State, 950 A.2d 1150, 1155-56 (R.I. 2008)). It is well settled that whenthe language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, this Court must interpret the statute literall......
-
Irons v. Rhode Island Ethics Com'n
...House of Representatives (Coastal Resources Management Council), 961 A.2d 930, 935-36 n. 7 (R.I. 2008) (CRMC); see also Such v. State, 950 A.2d 1150, 1156 (R.I.2008). Harmonization, however, is not possible in this case; I share the majority's view that the two provisions "stand in diametri......
-
State v. Lopez, P1/2014-0822 AG
...statute, the Rhode Island Supreme Court has emphatically rejected any confidence in so-called "legislative history." In Such v. State, 950 A.2d 1150, 1158-59 (R.I. 2008), the Court issued the following admonition:"Finally, this Court emphasizes that it does not rely in reaching its decision......
-
Rose v. State
...the meaning of a criminal statute is ambiguous and therefore inappropriate “ ‘when the legislative intent is clear.’ ” Such v. State, 950 A.2d 1150, 1158 (R.I.2008). In § 11–37–8.2, our Legislature clearly and directly stated that the penalty for first-degree child molestation was to be no ......