State v. HornState v. Horn
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Johnson
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Johnson, J.:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Joshua M. Horn pled guilty to one count of attempted aggravated criminal sodomy in violation of
The facts underlying Horn’s conviction are not germane to this opinion; it is enough to know that Horn was convicted of attempted aggravated criminal sodomy. The sole legal question before us is which of two statutes, each plainly applicable to the sentencing of attempted aggravated criminal sodomy, is to control. We exercise unlimited review of statutory interpretation questions, unfettered by the trial court’s findings. See State v. Thompson, 287 Kan. 238, 243, 200 P.3d 22 (2009); State v. Bryan, 281 Kan. 157, 159, 130 P.3d 85 (2006).
The crime of aggravated criminal sodomy is set forth in
However, Horn was convicted of an attempt to commit aggravated criminal sodomy.
However, a provision of Jessica’s Law,
Each statute is plain and unambiguous, which would normally preclude the application of any rules of construction or the reliance on legislative history. See In re KM.H., 285 Kan. 53, 79-80, 169 P.3d 1025 (2007). The conundrum arises not from any lack of clarity in statutory language, but rather from the existence of two statutes which appear to be controlling, yet are conflicting.
One proposed argument is that, when general and specific statutes are in conflict, the specific statute controls unless it appears the legislature intended otherwise. See
In re K.M.H.,
285 Kan. at 82;
State v. Le,
260 Kan. 845, 848, 926 P.2d 638 (1996). The argument here assumes that Jessica’s Law is the specific statute. However, one could view the statute which sets forth the elements of the crime to be the specific one, and the statute which lumps together attempt,
Nevertheless, the legislature sent a mixed message during the 2006 session in which it adopted Jessica’s Law. That year, it also created the new crimes of terrorism (
The district court focused on the provisions of Jessica’s Law, particularly noting that
Where the legislature fails to manifest a clear legislative intent by permitting the existence of conflicting statutory provisions, the rule of lenity must be considered. We recently discussed the rule in the context of multiplicity. See Thompson, 287 Kan. at 249; State v. Pham, 281 Kan. 1227, 1248, 136 P.3d 919 (2006). The general application of the rule is that “ ‘[c]riminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the accused. Any reasonable doubt about the meaning is decided in favor of anyone subjected to the criminal statute.’ ” State v. Rupnick, 280 Kan. 720, 735, 125 P.3d 541 (2005) (quoting State v. McGill, 271 Kan. 150, 154, 22 P.3d 597 [2001]).
Employing the rule of lenity in this case leads us to resolve the conflicting statutory provisions in favor of Horn. Specifically, aggravated criminal sodomy in violation of
Sentence vacated and case remanded for resentencing.