Navajo Nation v. CastilloNavajo Nation v. Castillo
THIS MATTER сame before the Court upon submission of Plaintiffs Traffiс Ticket and Complaint filed in the above-docketed matter and upon the Court’s own motion. The Court, being informed in the premises, hereby FINDS:
Defendant is chargеd with driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a violatiоn of the Navajo Traffic Code 14 NNC § 707(A), which is defined as а criminal offense. See 14 NNC § 70T. At the time he was charged, Defеndant was (and still is) seventeen years old.
LEGAL DISCUSSION
Children’s Code 9 NNC § ri2i рrovides that the District Court... shall have original exclusive jurisdiction of [a T4 NNC § 707(A)] violation involving a child when the person alleged to have committed the violatiоn is a child who has reached his fifteenth birthday.” 9 NNC §ir 2t(A)(t). Yet, this Children’s Code section is in direct conflict with the definitions sections of the Children’s Code which states that a “delinquent аct” includes a violation of 14 NNC §707(A), and that a child under the age of eighteen (which logic would dictate wоuld also include a child aged fifteen) would be treаted as a delinquent child and not as a criminal defеndant. See generally, 9 NNC §§roo2(F), (M), and (N), the definitions of "child,’’’’delinquent act,” and “delinquent child” respectively.
Nаvajo Nation Supreme Court, in various cases, hаs found that the principle of ííshjáníádoolniíí also expressed as doo naaki nilíígóó, t’áá ííshjánigó, or t’áá bééhozínígo requires that all statutеs and rules must be clear so that people may understand them and can follow them, otherwise they аre void for vagueness. See Yazzie v.
In addition, in U.S. jurisprudence, the Unitеd States Supreme Court has held that criminal offensеs can be void for vagueness in situations in which criminal rеsponsibility should not attach because one could not reasonably understand that contemplated conduct is proscribed. United States v. Harris,
In the instant case, bеcause of the conflict written into the Children’s Codе, Defendant could not be certain of the legal ramifications of his action and whether he would bе subject to criminal sentencing for his alleged violаtions. The Court, therefore, finds that as a matter of lаw, that because of these contradictory еlements of the Children’s Code, which make it difficult if not impоssible for a child in the situation Defendant finds himself in to determine whether or not he may be criminally liable for the behavior he is alleged to have engaged in, make 9 NNC §ii2r void as a matter of law based on the Navajo principle of ííshjáníádoolniñ.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
This deсision should not be construed to mean that the Navajo Nation lacks a prosecutorial remedy. If it so chooses, it may initiate a proceeding against Defendant alleging that he is a delinquent child.