State Of Washington v. J.j., 3/28/99
75964-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- J.J., a juvenile, pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm in the second degree under RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iv) (possession by a person under 18).
- At disposition the trial court imposed a minimum 10-day term of detention and relied on RCW 13.40.193(1) and a reviser’s note concerning renumbering of RCW 9.41.040.
- J.J. reserved the right to appeal the 10-day detention and challenged its statutory basis.
- RCW 13.40.193(1) requires a minimum 10-day confinement when the possession violates RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) (possession after prior involuntary mental-health commitment).
- After a 2014 amendment, RCW 9.41.040 added a new subsection and renumbered the prior subsections so that (iii) addresses prior involuntary commitment and (iv) addresses juveniles.
- The trial court’s record did not show J.J. had a prior involuntary mental-health commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (J.J.) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing a 10-day minimum detention when J.J. pleaded to RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iv) | RCW 13.40.193(1) imposes 10 days only for violations of RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii); J.J. pleaded to (iv), so no 10-day minimum applies | The Legislature inadvertently failed to update RCW 13.40.193 after renumbering; the reviser’s note and legislative purpose support imposing 10 days | Reversed — statutes unambiguous: 13.40.193(1) ties 10-day minimum to (iii) (prior involuntary commitment), not (iv) (juveniles). No showing J.J. met (iii) criteria. |
| Whether the court should correct the alleged legislative omission to avoid absurd results | (Implicit) No correction should be made absent a clear legislative intent | The omission was inadvertent and creates an unintended gap; court should infer intended application | Court declined to correct the omission — not absurd or undermining the statute’s purpose; courts cannot rewrite statutes absent clear legislative intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. J.M., 144 Wn.2d 472 (statutory meaning reviewed de novo; plain language controls)
- State v. King, 111 Wn. App. 430 (court may correct legislative omission only when omission renders statute absurd)
- State v. Taylor, 97 Wn.2d 724 (courts must not supply alleged omissions if literal meaning is plausible)
- Jenkins v. Bellingham Mun. Court, 95 Wn.2d 574 (court cannot read into statute what legislature omitted)
- State v. Brasel, 28 Wn. App. 303 (limitations on judicial correction of legislative omissions)
- State v. Blilie, 132 Wn.2d 484 (references to statutes include later amendments absent clear contrary intent)
Disposition: Reversed and remanded for a new disposition hearing.