State v. J.M.S.
2011 UT 75
| Utah | 2011Background
- State petitions delinquency for J.M.S., a 17-year-old, alleging solicitation to terminate a pregnancy by assault; juvenile court dismissed as non-abortion; appeal to Utah Supreme Court.
- J.M.S. sought to terminate her pregnancy; initial abortion attempt was unavailable due to gestational age.
- J.M.S. arranged for a stranger to punch her stomach to end the pregnancy; assault occurred; pregnancy ultimately ended naturally.
- Juvenile court defined abortion broadly as any procedure to terminate a live unborn child; relied on statutory language and linkage to abortion statute.
- The Supreme Court reverses, holding that “procedure” in the abortion statute is limited to medical procedures and does not include a solicited assault.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ‘procedure’ in the abortion statute mean medical procedures only? | State: ‘procedure’ is medical. | J.M.S.: broad reading allowed. | Yes; ‘procedure’ limited to medical procedures. |
| Would broad reading render homicide statute meaningless? | State: no issue; broad reading aligns with ends. | J.M.S.: broad reading harmonizes statutes. | Broad reading would render homicide/unborn-child provisions meaningless. |
| Is the broad reading of ‘procedure’ absurd and should be rejected? | N/A | Court should avoid absurd results. | Court rejects broad reading as producing absurd results. |
| Does the structural interplay between abortion and homicide statutes support medical-procedure reading? | N/A | Interplay shows medical domain for abortion vs. homicide for non-medical acts. | Yes; supports medical-procedure interpretation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harold Selman, Inc. v. Box Elder Cnty., 2011 UT 18 (Utah 2011) (statutory interpretation context and textual harmony)
- State v. Jeffries, 2009 UT 57 (Utah 2009) (absurd results canon in statutory interpretation)
- State v. Tillman, 750 P.2d 546 (Utah 1987) (two core requirements of murder: mens rea and actus reus)
- Carrier v. Salt Lake Cnty., 2004 UT 98 (Utah 2004) (omit parts of statute presumed intentional; interpret accordingly)
- Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P'ship, 2011 UT 50 (Utah 2011) (absurd results canon discussed in dissent)