399 S.W.3d 493
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- City charged Henderson in municipal court with two counts for keeping dangerous exotic animals under 5-29.
- Henderson moved to dismiss, arguing the ordinance was vague or overbroad; municipal court denied, and Henderson was convicted.
- Circuit court denied dismissal initially, then granted dismissal after finding alligators were not within the ordinance’s scope.
- The City appealed, arguing 5-29 bars dangerous exotic animals, and alligators may be covered as dangerous reptiles under the ordinance.
- The appellate court reviews a dismissal of a criminal charge de novo on questions of statutory interpretation; otherwise abuse of discretion applies.
- Court holds 5-29’s plain language and related definitions support applying the ban to alligators as a deadly dangerous or venomous reptile, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 5-29 ban alligators as dangerous exotic animals? | Henderson argues alligators are not covered by 5-29. | City argues 5-29 prohibits dangerous exotic animals, including alligators, under its broad language. | 5-29 can apply to alligators; remand for factual proof of designation as deadly/venomous reptile. |
| Are alligators exotic animals under 5-1 so as to remove them from 5-29’s scope? | Alligators are not listed as exotic animals in 5-1, so not protected by 5-1’s list. | Even if not exotic under 5-1, 5-29 expressly bans dangerous reptiles; including alligators is proper. | Expressio unius est exclusio alterius limits 5-1; but 5-29 separately bans deadly/dangerous reptiles; reversal and remand. |
| Do the terms 'includes' in 5-1 and the structure of the list affect interpretation of 5-29? | City argues 5-1’s list is enlargement; includes should broaden scope. | Because 5-1 lists specific items, it restricts rather than enlarges; alligators not on list. | Because 5-1’s list is restrictive, but 5-29 separately bans deadly reptiles, the trial court erred; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chad v. City of Lake Ozark, 223 S.W.3d 208 (Mo.App. W.D.2007) (interpretation of municipal ordinances; language governs)
- City of Joplin v. Joplin Water Works Co., 386 S.W.2d 369 (Mo.1965) (intent found in language; avoid ambiguity)
- Short v. Southern Union Co., 372 S.W.3d 520 (Mo.App. W.D.2012) (includes as enlargement vs. limitation; context matters)
- St. Louis County v. State Highway Commission, 409 S.W.2d 149 (Mo.1966) (interpretation of 'include' in lists)
- State ex rel. Huffman v. Sho-Me Power Co-op, 191 S.W.2d 971 (Mo.1946) (exclusionary effect when list is specific)
- PDQ Tower Servs., Inc. v. Adams, 213 S.W.3d 697 (Mo.App. W.D.2007) ('including' followed by list viewed restrictively)
- Moynihan v. Gunn, 204 S.W.3d 230 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (limits on judicial rules of construction absent ambiguity)