United States v. Thompson, 9296.
| Decision Date | 14 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 9298.,No. 9296.,9296.,9298. |
| Citation | 347 A.2d 581 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. Ivan C. THOMPSON and Gerald E. Thompson, Appellees. UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. James R. McCLOUD and Leon G. Joyner, Appellees. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Jonathan B. Marks, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Earl J. Silbert, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry and Nicholas Gilman, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellant.
Thomas W. Farquhar, Washington, D. C., appointed by the court, for appellees in No. 9298.
Before KELLY, KERN and GAL-LAGHER, Associate Judges.
In this appeal the government questions the dismissal by the trial court of counts in two indictments1 charging appellees with violations of D.C.Code 1973, § 22-505(a). Section 22-505(a) provides:
Whoever without justifiable and excusable cause, assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any officer or member of any police force operating in the District of Columbia, or any officer or member of any fire department operating in the District of Columbia; or any officer or employee of any penal or correctional institution of the District of Columbia, or any officer or employee of the government of the District of Columbia charged with the supervision of juveniles being confined pursuant to law in any facility of the District of Columbia, whether such institution or facility is located within the District of Columbia or elsewhere, while engaged in or on account of the performance of his official duties, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. . . .
Noting the language dealing with employees of District of Columbia penal or correctional institutions, viz., "whether such institution or facility is located within the District of Columbia or elsewhere", the trial court decided that the statute as a whole had extraterritorial effect. The jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts, however, is specifically limited to criminal cases "under any law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia." D.C.Code 1973, § 11-923(b) (1). Because Section 22-505(a) was considered to have extraterritorial effect, the trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the charges against appellees under that statute and entered orders of dismissal.
Appellant argues that the Superior Court does indeed have jurisdiction of offenses charged under Section 22-505(a) because the section is applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia — the troublesome language regarding the location of correctional institutions being in its view simply a description of the class of penal and correctional officers protected by the statute rather than an indication of the locus of the offense. Alternatively, the government argues that the only part of Section 22-505(a) having extraterritorial effect applies to penal or correctional officers and therefore that the Superior Court had jurisdiction of that part of Section 22-505 proscribing assaults on police officers, with which appellees here were charged.
We do not reach the government's first argument since it is unnecessary to determine whether the District of Columbia courts have jurisdiction of an offense with which appellees were not charged.2 Turning to the government's alternative argument, we agree that the local courts have jurisdiction of that part of Section 22-505(a) prohibiting assaults on police officers, and therefore we reverse.
Congress enacted Section 11-923(b)(1) as part of the District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act of 1970, and provided that "the Superior Court has jurisdiction of any criminal case under any law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia." (Emphasis added.) As the trial court reads this section, "any law" means "any statute," and a statutory section in its entirety must apply exclusively to the District in order for the Superior Court to have jurisdiction of any of the prohibitions or directions contained in the unseverable statute. But Congress did not say "any statute," "any act of Congress" or "any entire section." Instead, it chose the broader term "law," which we interpret to mean any distinct, self-contained directive or prohibition.
It is a maxim of statutory construction that the language of a statute should be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary and usual sense, and "with the meaning commonly attributed to it." Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485-86, 37 S.Ct. 192, 194, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917); Temporaries, Inc. v. District Unemployment Compensation Bd., D.C.App., 304 A. 2d 14 (1973); Rosenberg v. United States, D.C.App., 297 A.2d 763 (1972); General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. One 1962 Chevrolet Sedan, D.C.App., 191 A.2d 140 (1963); United States v. Public Util. Comm'n, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 227, 151 F.2d 609 (1945). Black's Law Dictionary 1028 (4th ed. 1968) compiles a list of definitions of the word "law," including a "distinct and complete act of positive law; . . . [a] command which obliges a person to acts or forebearances of a class; . . . [a] rule of civil conduct commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong." Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines law as "a rule or mode of conduct or action that is proscribed or formally recognized as binding by a supreme controlling authority or is made obligatory by a sanction . . . made, recognized, or enforced by the controlling authority." M. Webster, Third New International Dictionary of the English Language 1279 (Unabridged ed. 1969).
Consequently, we must reject the trial court's definition of the term which confined "law" to mean only the unseverable statutory sections as they appear in the District of Columbia Code.
Relying on a broader definition of the word, we conclude that Section 22-505(a) contains in effect three different "laws" — three distinct and self-contained prohibitions of conduct. The first law provides a fine and imprisonment for anyone who "assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any officer or member of any police force operating in the District of Columbia." Act of June 29, 1953, ch. 159, § 205, 67 Stat. 95. The second law was added to Section 22-505(a) by way of amendment, and extended the same penal sanctions to anyone who assaults "any officer or employee of any penal or correctional institution of the District of Columbia, or any officer or employee of the government of the District of Columbia charged with the supervision of juveniles being confined pursuant to law in any facility of the District of Columbia, whether such institution or facility is located within the District of Columbia or elsewhere." Act of Oct. 20, 1965, Pub.L. No. 89-277, § 1, 79 Stat. 1011. The final law was also added by way of amendment to Section 22-505(a) and it extended the same sanctions to persons who assault "any officer or member of any fire department operating in the District of Columbia." Act of Aug. 11, 1971, Pub.L. No. 92-92, 85 Stat. 316.3
The historical development of the three laws contained in Section 22-505(a) emphasizes their distinct and separable nature. Each provision was enacted individually over a period of twenty years, and each was intended to protect a specific and well-defined class of persons. Further more, each provision had a clear purpose of creating a new law or penalty and each intended to prevent one type of conduct deemed by the legislature to be harmful to the public order. See S.Rep.No.92-322, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 1-3 (1971); H. R.Rep.No.92-170, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 1-5 (1971), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News Admin.News 1971, p. 322; S.Rep.No.89-640, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 1-2 (1965); H.R.Rep.No.89-1130, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. 1-3 (1965), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1965, p. 1002; S. Rep.No.83-364, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1953); H.R.Rep.No.83-514, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 6 (1953). Nowhere in the legislative history of these provisions is there an indication that Congress intended all three laws to be interdependent, nor is there any suggestion that the alleged extraterritorial of the provisions dealing with correctional officers extends or applies to the other two.
Turning to D.C.Code 1973, § 11-923, there is also nothing in the legislative history of that section to indicate that the Superior Court does not have jurisdiction of a law which applies exclusively to the District of Columbia merely because that law appears in the same statute with another law having extraterritorial effect. In fact, just the opposite purpose appears in the history of Section 11-923. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives Reports clearly illustrate Congress' intent to transfer "all purely local matters" to the of Columbia courts. See S.Rep. No.91-405, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 4-5 (1970); H.R.Rep.No.91-907, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. 33 (1970), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 1970, p. 551. Moreover, the Reports speak of transferring jurisdiction over D. C. "felonies", "crimes", or "offenses", to the Superior Court. The use of these terms as descriptions of the law over which the Superior Court has jurisdiction illustrates Congress' concern with each individual criminal violation rather than with entire statutes or enactments which may contain several offenses or laws. See S. Rep.No.91-405, supra, at 24; H.R.Rep.No. 91-907, supra, at 32-33, U.S.Code Cong. & 1970, p. 551.
We conclude, therefore, that the trial court erred in its reading of Sections 11-923 and 22-505(a). Section 11-923 was intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WEST END TENANTS v. GEORGE WASHINGTON UV., 91-CV-667
...751, 753 (D.C. 1983) (en banc), and words should be construed according to the meaning commonly attributed to them. United States v. Thompson, 347 A.2d 581, 583 (D.C. 1975). In sum, "'[t]he words used, even in their literal sense, are the primary and ordinarily the most reliable source of i......
-
In re D.T., No. 06-FS-979.
...its ordinary and usual sense, and `with the meaning commonly attributed to it,'" readily comprehends human teeth. United States v. Thompson, 347 A.2d 581, 583 (D.C.1975) (quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 192, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917)). It quite clearly does. In thi......
-
Davis v. United States
...the statute should be construed according to their ordinary sense and with the meaning commonly attributed to them. United States v. Thompson, D.C.App., 347 A.2d 581 (1975). The statute allows the court, where granting probation, to impose sentence and suspend the execution thereof. The ord......
-
Peoples Drug Stores v. District of Columbia
...according to their ordinary sense and with the meaning commonly attributed to them." Davis, supra, 397 A.2d at 956; United States v. Thompson, 347 A.2d 581, 583 (D.C.1975). The critical language of § 47-2403 provides: "Any person aggrieved, by any assessment . . . may within six months afte......