*1 Argued September and submitted affirmed December reconsideration 3, 1987 (302 658) January petition denied for review denied March Or In the Matter of Rodney White, Allen Child.
STATE ex rel JUVENILE DEPARTMENT COUNTY,
OF COLUMBIA Respondent, WHITE, Appellant. A38728)
(4316; CA
Richard D. Assistant respondent. argued With him on the brief were the cause Frohnmayer, Attorney Jr., General, Mountain, James E. Dave Nancy Clerk, General, Diamond, Certified Law Solicitor Salem. *2 Presiding Judge, Buttler, and
Before Warren Judges. Rossman,
ROSSMAN, J. dissenting.
Warren, J.,
ROSSMAN, J. a juvenile The sole issue in this case is whether who but has not attained his 18th younger.” is “17 or
Defendant a minor in being posses- was convicted January 21,1986. time, years, sion1 At that on he seven was eight days months and old. Pursuant 809.260 (former to ORS 482.593),2 suspension court ordered the of his driving privileges. provides, part: “(1) person Whenever a who is 17 or
younger, but younger age, not than 13 is convicted of any by offense described in this subsection or determined juvenile court to have committed one described offenses, the court which the is convicted shall Division, prepare and send to the Motor Vehicles within determination, hours the conviction or an order of denial of driving privileges so This convicted. section crime, violation, applies involving any infraction or other offense possession, use or abuse of alcohol controlled (Emphasis supplied.) substances.” *3 years
Defendant contends “17 age younger” of or does not him, apply passed to because he had and was in his living year 18th of life when he was convicted. We disagree. apply clear,
We unambiguous according statutes their plain meaning, unless a literal application produce an unintended or absurd result. v. Satterfield, 292 Satterfield 780, Or 643 P2d In parlance, 336 a years age upon becomes 17 of reaching years 17 age birthday.
remains until he reaches his 18th Although jurisdictions defendant cites case law from other
1 provides, part: ORS “(1) age years attempt purchase, purchase No under the shall Except acquire liquor. private or alcoholic when such minor is a residence accompanied by guardian parent parent’s or of the minor and with such or consent, guardian’s age years personal no under the of 21 shall have possession liquor.” of alcoholic 16, by 1985, by repealed replaced Former ORS § 482.593 was Or Laws ch 475 and 809.260, 1985, (which 16, January 1,1986), Or Laws 206§ ch became effective Or 1985, 16, Laws ch 476. § does not younger” years age or his view that “17
support of do birthdays, we their 17th who have persons include a such strained and refuse to convincing it not find meaning for an absurd, unintended provide an construction to with defen- quarrel we do not Although statute.3 unambiguous the current century that' this is the 20th argument dant’s — helps his case. not see how that 1986—we do year only is Affirmed.
WARREN, J., dissenting. therefore, and, dissent. with the disagree with the confronted state courts have been
Numerous individuals of which interpreting statutes task of Rawlings, 250 Iowa In Knott v. younger.” “or designated age with (1959), charged was the defendant 892, 96 NW2d years, was sixteen with a child who lascivious acts committing prohibited The relevant statute days and three old. six months age of the body “of a child or with the presence acts in the such Rawlings, supra, 96 NW2d Knott v. or under.” years, of sixteen is sixteen that a child who argument to the response at 900. In under,” the age or years old is “sixteen and six months years stated: “ mean years’ must be construed of sixteen ‘Of years, i.e., years six says, and not sixteen just sixteen what money, If, one days. speaking in terms of months and three dollars or under’ say charge will be fifteen ‘The fee or were to say misunderstanding. To possibility of would be no there same as sixteen months means the and six that sixteen have a definite loosely words which play with is to * * *” Rawlings, supra, v. at 901. Knott 96 NW2d meaning. (1982); McGaha, 449, 450 295 SE2d See State v. 306 NC (1925); Commonwealth, 595, 597 178, 278 Cloyd v. Ky SW Gibson Lanassa, 51 So 688 125 La ambiguous, younger” we do not which if the term “17 Even history clearly intended to is, 809.260 was indicates that ORS think it *4 birthdays. throughout year preceding House Commit juveniles their 18th the to 79-301; 379, on Judiciary, May Tape Senate Committee Side A at on tee Admittedly, 1983, 160, Tourism, 29, Tape A 36. Side at Transportation June and years phrase “under 18 legislature the preferable to have used have been would birthdays. up that it chose different juveniles The fact age” to their 18th include of to interpret phrase in the accomplish lead us to terminology result should not the same to way legislature never intended. that the a
229
Maxson,
600,
44
also
Peoples,
Colo
which the A persuasive. juvenile is 17 Hansen, the anniversary on 17th of birth. State v. 82 Or (1986). App 178, 181, P2d 538 Seventeen is an exact and period definite of anniversary time. Before the of a juvenile’s birth, he years is under 17 of and after that anniversary over he is majority accepts
The the argument state’s and con- cludes that this is derogation construction in intent. regard, In this the state contends that the legislature intended years younger” “17 mean to “under 18.”2 The state legislative history cites which indicates that the legislature intended ORS 809.260 to to juveniles up to birthday. Nevertheless, their 18th it is not within judici- the ary’s power to rewrite an unambiguous statute so to carry as legislature’s out the legislature, itself, intent when the has to failed do so. This rule of construction was noted in Monaco interpretation 471.105, application This is with consistent the of ORS which provides: qualified liquor being purchase commission, “Before from alcoholic the a
person age.” must be over contends, juvenile If a 17 until as the state this would turn birthday. Consequently, a is 21 until his a mean 22nd not be would “over purchase 21” until his 22nd thus be unable to until alcohol time. (former argues 482.593(1)) The state that ORS 809.260 ORS was “enacted specifically penalize juveniles relating as a class distinct from adults for offenses 419.476(1) drug and alcohol use. Pursuant exclusive ORS ‘[t]he ” original jurisdiction any involving person age.’ case under who is This however, that, argument, points throughout legislature out ORS ch used the 809.260, however, phrase age.” legislature “under 18 In chose statutes, language. legislature different uses When different terms related it is Crumal, presumed meanings App 41, 45, were intended. that different 54 Or P2d 1313 *5 Guar., (1976), 183, 188, P2d 422 Fidelity
v. U.S. & 275 Or following in the manner: indicate, history may it of an
“Whatever the act operational legislature is for its intent into the translate unambiguous language. clear This court cannot correct language legislature as to better serve what the so was, been, legislature’s Lane have intent. feels or should al, 152, 157, County Co. et v. Heintz Construction 228 Or (1961).” P2d 627 Heltzel, Berry Transport,
See also Inc. v. 202 Or 128-29, 20 P P2d 965 17 Or Wolf, also that construe The contends we should up to their 18th juveniles ORS 809.260 to in is 17 an parlance because spoken unambiguous year. legislature entire When terms, necessary permitted. is neither nor construction only applies hold ORS 809.260 to a up anniversary birth. including to and therefore, case, the reach of beyond The defendant in this The knows how a statute to legislature the statute. write under. See n persons make legislation We not because we think supra. engage should fact, it, to do legislature we know what the meant when did something else.