STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION………………………………Revised September 2021 I. Table of Contents Statutes ………………………………………………………………………………...2 II. Rules ……………………………………………………………………………………7 A. Evidence Rules………………………………………………………………...11 B. Juvenile Rules …………………………………………………………………12 C. Administrative Rules ……………………………………...…………………..13 III. Constitutional Provisions …………………………………………………………….13 IV. Propositions …………………………………………………………………………..17 V. Ordinances …………………………………………………………………………...20 VI. Court Orders…………………………………………………………………………20 VII. Case Law – General Rules of Statutory Construction ………………………….21 A. Permissive and Restrictive Terms…………………………………………..33 B. Constitutionality………………………………………………………………..34 VIII. Case Law – Special Rules of Statutory Construction ………………………….36 A. Grammatical Rules ………………………………………………………… 36 B. More Recent and Specific Governs over Older and More General ……..38 C. Fun with Latin ………………………………………………………………… 39 1. In para materia ………………………………………………………39 2. Ejusdem generis ……………………………………………………41 3. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius …………………………… 42 D. Rule of Lenity ………………………………………………………………… 45 E. Amendments as Change or Clarification of Law …………………………. 47 F. Presumption Against Repeal by Implication ……………………………… 51 G. Other Special Rules…………………………………………………………...54 I. STATUTES A.R.S. § 1-211 provides the following general rules for construing Arizona law: A. The rules and the definitions set forth in this chapter shall be observed in the construction of the laws of the state unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the legislature. B. Statutes shall be liberally construed to effect their objects and to promote justice. C. The rule of the common law that penal statutes shall be strictly construed has no application to these revised statutes. Penal statutes shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms, with a view to effect their object and to promote justice. See State v. Clow, 42 Ariz. 68, ¶ 15 (App. 2017) (defining the term "month" for purposes of continuing sexual abuse of a child under § 13-1417 in accordance with the fair import of the terms of the statute with a view to effect their object and to promote justice as required under § 1-211(C)). A.R.S. § 1-211(C) is reiterated in the criminal code under A.R.S. § 13-104: The general rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed does not apply to this title, but the provisions herein must be construed according to the fair meaning of their terms to promote justice and effect the objects of the law, including the purposes stated in section 13-101. 1 1 A.R.S. § 13-101. Purposes: It is declared that the public policy of this state and the general purposes of the provisions of this title are: 1. To proscribe conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably causes or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests; 2. To give fair warning of the nature of the conduct proscribed and of the sentences authorized upon conviction; 3. To define the act or omission and the accompanying mental state which constitute each offense and limit the condemnation of conduct as criminal when it does not fall within the purposes set forth; 4. To differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses and to prescribe proportionate penalties for each; 5. To ensure the public safety by preventing the commission of offenses through the deterrent influence of the sentences authorized; 6. To impose just and deserved punishment on those whose conduct threatens the public peace; and [continued on next page] 2 Thus, criminal statutes are not to be strictly construed but according to the fair meaning of their terms to promote justice and effect the objects of the law, including the purposes stated in § 13-101; under A.R.S. § 13-101(2), (4), two purposes of Arizona’s Criminal Code are to give fair warning of the nature of the conduct proscribed and of the sentences authorized upon conviction and to differentiate on reasonable grounds between serious and minor offenses and to prescribe proportionate penalties for each. State v. Hon. Brain (Hu), 244 Ariz. 525, ¶ 18 (2018) (finding that if it was the legislature’s intent to enhance animal cruelty offenses by allowing the State to allege dangerousness, the legislature had not given fair warning of the enhanced sentencing and the consequences related thereto). However, where a statute provides a right in derogation of the common law, it

docDoc Statutory Construction

Practical Docs > Common > Other > Preview
54 Pages 0 Downloads 40 Views 3.0 Score
Tips: Current document can only be previewed at most page3,If the total number of pages in the document exceeds page 3,please download the document。
Uploaded by admin on 2022-04-25 02:07:06
Rate
You can enter 255 characters
What is my domain?( answer:www.45doc.com )
comments
  • No comments yet