State v. Jones

P.J., HOLLIGER, Before RONALD R. M.

ROBERT G. JOSEPH ULRICH

ELLIS, JJ. Denzel, Columbia, course, law, are which this appellant. questions

Kent Harney, court reviews de novo.” State Daniels, Gen., Atty. Jef- Deborah Asst. W.D.2001). (Mo.App. City, for respondent. ferson our Viewed accordance with standard ELLIS, Presiding Before JOSEPH M. review, facts this case are of the of SPINDEN, Judge, Judge PAUL M. and straightforward. morning On of De- the HOWARD, Judge. C. VICTOR 31, 2002, girlfriend cember Jones and his ELLIS, Judge. JOSEPH M. Callaway County drove to the rural mobile Hazlett, home of Justin Eric Jones’ friend The charged Appellant, State William buddy” of “fishing eight seven (“Jones”), the D felo- Jones Jr. with Class pick wood-burning to a ny corpse, years, up stove abandoning of a section County jury A found promised give 194.425.1.1 Boone Hazlett had to to Jones. charged, him as and the circuit court guilty appeared saw to be Jones Hazlett to im- four-year him a term of sentenced lawn, got on the he of lying front out prisonment custody in the of Missouri thought him. the car to check on He Department ap- of Corrections. Jones Hazlett, body prone facing was whose judgment circuit of con- peals the court’s unconscious af- upward, might sleeping, viction, advancing points relied on. two drinking heavily having being beat- ter

In point, en, first which his of of his resolves or dead. He kicked the heel one that, appeal, because he Jones asserts noticed that Hazlett’s shoes. When he could found have committed the not be yellow” body looked “kind of charged beyond a doubt offense reasonable that there was dried blood on his face and trial, presented the evidence nose, coming out his concluded of Jones overruling circuit erred in his motion court returned that Hazlett was dead. He then acquittal a at the directed verdict of away. drove He told his to his vehicle and close of the State’s case. and, if that Hazlett dead girlfriend was asked, had police not to tell the acquittal

“A verdict of is directed did not at Hazlett’s house. Jones been is there insufficient authorized where Callaway corpse’s location report support guilty verdict.” evidence Morovitz, law Some- County enforcement officials. did, “The function of noon the else around apparently one determining court limited whether Hazlett, last day. who was seen same there sufficient evidence from which was place called gathering alive at local have found de persons could reasonable evening of December Store on Crane’s evaluating guilty charged. fendant in the head some- had been shot twice issue, must appellate trial courts time between then and when Jones discov- all of its reasonable view the evidence and morning. following his corpse ered light in the most favorable inferences jury violating of convicted Jones State, any disregarding evidence 194.425.1, in its provides, which (internal contrary.” inferences to entirety: “A commits the crime person omitted). case of this citations Resolution person corpse if that abandonment of statutory interpretation. also involves abandons, or leaves deserts interpretation, disposes, “Questions statutory statutory are to 1. All references RSMo Bratina

corpse properly reporting the loca- called 911. Id. at D proper charged felony tion of the enforce- with the class of aban- law A county.”2 corpse ment officials in that As men- donment of a and the class mis- above, endangering tioned abandonment of a is a demeanor of the welfare 191.125.2, felony, § D degree. Class and the circuit child in the second Id. at 626. four-year felony court sentenced Jones to a term he moved to dismiss the After imprisonment custody charge, arguing of the Mis- that section 194.425.1was Department unconstitutionally vague, souri of Corrections. trial court granted the motion and declared the stat- testify presented Jones did not no appealed, ute to be void. Id. The State However, other evidence at trial. his mo- reversed, Supreme and the Missouri Court acquittal tion for a directed verdict of at holding that the statute did not violate the the close of the State’s evidence was over- process Bratina gave due clause since it ruled, assigned and this in as error his fair notice conduct that declared unsuccessful motion for point new trial and 626, abe crime. Id. at on, fully relied thus preserving the suffi- ciency appellate setting issue for review. See After forth the text of section McClunie, 267, full, v. analysis State 438 S.W.2d 268 194.425in began Court its (Mo.1969). primary objective Our by noting in inter- a question is as “[t]here preting section give 194.425.1is to effect to criminal what conduct made intent, Assembly’s this, the General and we dis- statute.” at 626. To Id. illustrate cern that intent plain from the and ordi- length the Court recounted at a familiar nary meaning of the statute’s words. scene from The Huckleberry Adventures of Grubb, (Mo. 737, Finn, State 120 S.W.3d in Finn which Huck and his friend 2003). plain banc ordinary and mean- a in body Jim discovered naked male ing of the words of statute is their in house located on a flooded island meaning in dictionary “found ... un- Mississippi they River but left it where less the provides a reporting anyone. different found it without it to Indus., definition.” island, Lincoln Inc. v. Dir. canoeing they Id. After over to the Revenue, (Mo. upon through banc came the house and entered In this regard, upstairs daybreak, our an At window. Id. interpretation window, Court’s recent they of section looked in the and Huck de- Bratina, 194.425.1 in saw: scribed 2002), is instructive. something laying on the floor There was in the far corner that looked like a man. Bratina, alleged State ‘Hello, says: you!’ So Jim defendant, apart- James left his budge. again, It I didn’t So hollered Jackson, Missouri, ment in January says: asleep— ‘De man ain’t Jim a.m., at leaving about 6:40 behind his You hold he’s dead. still.’ three-year-old daughter body and the went, looked, his deceased wife. 73 S.W.3d at 626. bent He down and Yes, Bratina apartment, says: indeedy; When left the he went ‘It’s a dead man. naked, place to his of work and returned He’s ben shot in the back. about too. later, days. three to four hours at I which time he reck’n he’s ben dead two er three director) Although option charg- pothesize jury the State had the in the verdict ing prosecuting having Jones with aban- that Jones ''left” Hazlett's doned, deserted, disposed, reporting county or left Hazlett’s location to law enforce- its (and corpse, argue hy- the State chose to ment officials. in, Huck, support disrupt- Come but doan’ look at his from or withdrawing gashly.’ ing duty. face—it’s the bond too of attachment or (footnotes omitted). Id. at 627 I him didn’t look at at all. Jim threw old As rags some over him but he to the last word used needn’t General it; Assembly I done didn’t want to him. section 194.425.1 to describe see (“leaves”), the concept of abandonment narrator then recounts how Huck [The ambiguous Court noted that it was when ‘good and Jim belong- made haul’ of considered isolation. Id. “Does it I ings the house and then pad- left:] asked, leaves,” mean in what Court “as shore, died over to the Illinois and drift- did, leaves, Huck and Jim in mortu- down a half doing ed most a mile it. I ary carrying leaving attendants bank, up crept the dead water under the porch on the front home decedent’s and hadn’t no accidents and didn’t see pay dispo- when the relatives fail to for its nobody. gotWe home all safe. say: sition?” Id. That is to (internal omitted). 626-27 citation If Huck Finn his friend Jim were Missourians, century might real 21st Turning to the words used facing felony 194.425.1, they be a D for abandon- the then noted: Court all, corpse? They, ment of a after did concept of in the “abandonment” corpse ‘leave’ a that had found. person is a clearly upon statute based Bratina makes a similar that point, in, having duty an with interest or re- street, the an walking someone down to, abandon, spect body. the To the bystander, innocent would be commit- us, dictionary is tells “to cease to assert crime if ting kept walking a he interest, right or exercise an or to title reporting the to the au- corpse proper esp. again with the intent of never re- thorities. ” suming or .... or “to reasserting omitted). Id. (original paragraph style spite forsake or desert of an esp. allegiance, duty, ambiguity or the responsibility.” The The Court resolved legislature’s by words that the statute uses to describe created the use of the word by observing the are concept of abandonment “aban- “leaves” “leaves” dons, isolation, “not the disposes, along deserts or leaves.” The used but with ” ‘abandons, contain Id. disposes, first three of these words the words deserts.’ concept a maxim person Applying statutory that the has relation- the of construc (“it body. or to the tion known as a sociis is ship duty respect with noscitur associates”),3 dispose known from its the something implies To of that one Court all possession Similarly, has of it. to held that inasmuch as “these terms des- part meaning have of a relation synonyms ert —one of the of abandon— as their concept turning away ship duty respect with to the dead includes the of " object the it is ‘The maxim is to the effect that the of whole clause in which rule or ” Dairies, Thomason, meaning may be Foremost Inc. v. of a doubtful word ascer- used.' 1964) meaning (quot- 384 tained reference to the words 660 ing Under this rule of 66 C.J.S. Noscitur a Sociis associated with it. noscitur sociis, words, (1950)). general wisely applied specific capable This maxim "is often a together, many meanings analogous meaning, capable used where a word when other, general giving of to avoid the unintended take color from each so order analogous statutory are to a to breadth” in construction. Jarecki words restricted sense Co., 303, 307, general, meaning a & U.S. 81 S.Ct. less and the of word G.D. Searle 1579, 1582, (1961). may enlarged or restrained reference to L.Ed.2d duty that of no id. at 627. We know in which See body,” that was also sense on impose obligation an Jones would employed by legislature. “leaves” was According- take care of Thus, n. 5. the Court held that Id. & Mend ly, had been Hazlett’s that Jones part has of its mean- term “leaves” also in no put him Hazlett was alive while ing relationship duty respect a with vis-a-vis Hazlett’s legal position, different body. the dead always been total corpse, than had the two recog- went on to Our Court strangers to each other.4 it, that, on the facts before it was nize case, law had no common Jones ques- unnecessary expressly rule on the corpse, which for Hazlett’s responsibility statute, section tion of “whether in Hazlett’s merely upon happened he 194.425, duty goes impose as far as to a here the court is yard. Accordingly, front stranger notify the authorities when upon to decide whether called body is discovered.” Id. That was dead imposes duty, the violation 194.425.1 relationship duty Bratina’s with because offense, felony criminal which constitutes a at not that respect to the issue was county person notify proper on a stranger bystand- or “innocent of mere when he or law enforcement authorities stressed, Instead, er.” Court has merely encounters what he or she she wife, body body is that of his “[t]he a dead but has no determined to be household, was in his and he is the next of duty re- relationship or with common law facts, held, kin.” Id. These the Court Al- sepulcher. care or spect proper to its a common law impose were sufficient to not come though the Bratina did Court Bratina to duty upon properly care say procedur- so simply out and due (cit- body of his dead wife. Id. 627-28 case, of posture reading a careful al Jackson, E. Law ing Percival The Ca- it that the statute opinion makes clear (2d ed.1950)). davers 38-36 because, in duty as used imposes no such that, in accor The State contends 194.425.1, employed “leaves” was section Bratina, friendship close dance with Jones’ in sense legislature its more limited necessary common to Hazlett created the In other rather than in its broader sense. duty, that al relationship arguing law or words, it in the sense of mortu- was used a though “friendship legal does not denote leaving body a ary carrying attendants and relationship or blood like of a husband home porch on the front decedent’s child, it a parent and wife or rela dispo- pay the relatives fail to for its when How tionship implied allegiance.” with an sition, Huck and Jim opposed as to what ever, erro approach this to the statute is in Accordingly, as used section did. relationship 194.425.1, neous because it looks a be construed “leaves” should corpse. involving deposit[s], other than one Since or deliv- “put[s], placets], mean in duty process departing or must be relation to the or in the the bond before er[s] ... in friendship withdrawing” to Hazlett was or corpse, “cause[s] Jones’ condition,” duty specified imposed irrelevant unless it some some ThiRD WebsteR’s to take care of Hazlett’s Jones OF THE En- New INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY conception of section reflected an erroneous record shows that the verdict director However, (and light disposi- given by in of our by the the trial 194.425.1. submitted State Jones) grounds, we need objection by actually tion of this case on other court over re- not) (and consti- decide whether this quired jury at the time defen- not do to find "that error, plain prejudicial either corpse, tuted reversible left the defendant was a friend of dant observed, just preserved. As this Justin Eric Hazlett.” glish Language UnabRidged (1993),5 him to departing, obligated and no law “permit[s] body arrange rather than to remain undis- care of the or to for its take position.” accidentally hap or in the same M6 sepulcher. turbed He had a construction is consistent with our corpse merely permit Such pened upon the Bratina, in Supreme Court’s observations just it he first ted it to remain as was when implied that to strongly the Court where having no sub discovered it. “There been in latter sense does corpse “leave” a guilt of defendant’s de stantial evidence “relationship or not involve a sufficient for a verdict of fendant’s motion directed body” for duty respect with to the dead have been sustained.” acquittal should prohibited by that conduct to be (Mo. 800, 803 Irby, 423 S.W.2d 194.425.1, corpse a while “leave” sense does. former for a argues The dissent nevertheless Indeed, if must be the case interpretation of the word much broader Huck and extended discussion of Court’s encompass which would “leaves”—one they had leaving corpse act of a Jim’s corpse leaving act of both a mortician’s (as to a mortician’s act of opposed

found nonpaying porch, front as well on a client’s nonpaying on a client’s leaving (and Jones) did. as what Huck Jim any porch) given front is to be effect Dissenting Opinion at 459. The dissent meaning by this court. section 194.425.1 asserts because dissent, not, argued This is itself, wrong that is criminalizes conduct rule of statu- departure from the cardinal se, that word as to construe or malum apply that courts will tory construction the statute’s we do here would thwart ordinary meaning unless plain word’s purposes, noting “commonly understood” that it intends makes clear not “remain afar from that Jones did meaning. Dissenting Opinion a different corpse,” “got but uninvolved with Hazlett’s Rather, simply acknowledges at 460. car by getting it” out of his involved with plain has at least two the fact that “leaves” why lying determine (one and one ordinary meanings broad kicking the heel one where it was and narrow), Bratina, strong- and in the Court him. try shoes to to arouse formally not ly suggested (although it did Citing multiple alternative hold) meaning was that the more limited “abandon,” “des- dictionary definitions of Assembly. by the General the one intended “leave,” ert,” the dissent “dispose,” and violated section concludes that Jones reasons, be it cannot foregoing For the this “volun- when he withdrew 194.425.1 corpse as “left” Hazlett’s said Jones help” without support and tarily extended when he drove contemplated by the statute of Ha- the location subsequently reporting kicking up body, to the walking off after county enforcement corpse to law zlett’s shoes, seeing of one of Hazlett’s the heel ordinary sense of plain in the officials head, and on Hazlett’s the dried blood perceive Id. at 459-60. those words. We not dead. He had realizing that he was rea- incorrect for several this view to be delivered, or other- deposited, put, placed, sons. body to be there before caused the wise Dictionary Dictionary (5th (5th 6. See also Blacks’ Blacks’ Law Law

5. See also ed.1979) stay (defining "to let or "leave” as ed.1979) place, put, (defining "leave” as "[t]o subject to "to to remain continue” and suffer deliver, like.”) deposit, or the control, like.”) action, or the another’s ed.1979) (so (5th defining “dis- all, supra, First of as noted the dissent’s nary of’).7 Accordingly, the dissent’s pose[s] what interpretation is inconsistent with conso- is not of the statute interpretation in our Court said Bratina about meaning of the ordinary with the nant it is meaning of the word “leaves” as “disposes.” term associated 194.425.1, in Huck used section because just and Jim did as much if more with not no imposes Third, approach the dissent’s respect corpse they to the as encountered scope of the limitations on the concrete is, Jones did with Hazlett’s That statute, it does not advise because Huck and Jim did not afar from “remain bar, “precisely or bench public, the body and uninvolved with” the naked male in a one must have much interest how encountered, they “got but involved with committed deemed to have corpse to be trying body to by why it” determine Dis- abandoning corpse.” crime of it lying yelling was where was and at the Suppose, at 459. for ex- senting Opinion try they man to arouse him. After heel of kicking instead of ample, that was, fact, determined that he in dead due shoes, yelled had or of Hazlett’s Jones one wound, gunshot to a Jim threw some old corpse, hands at Hazlett’s clapped his rags attempt over the an stick, pebble poked at it with a or thrown spare ghastly visage, Huck from the any or all of those acts at it. Would they departed telling anyone what help,” “protection, support, constitute seen and done. had that their discontinuation id. at such sufficient to constitute abandonment?

Second, the dissent’s construction of circumstances, would And under those heavily word “leaves” is influenced had a be deemed to have properly Jones definitions of two other words used in sec- relationship interest sufficient tion 194.425.1—“abandons” and “des- guilty having him of com- corpse to make (but may of which involve erts” —both do felony, punisha- D which is mitted Class necessarily require) prior not act of con- 558.011.1(4), ble, by a term under section possession part trol or on the of the actor. Mis- custody in the imprisonment Id. The dissent further defines the term upof Department souri of Corrections “disposes,” which is also used to describe is, the dissent’s years? five As under concept abandonment “ 194.425, innocent interpretation of section 194.425.1, meaning ‘assign[s] par- to a ” strangers happening or other bystanders position[.]’ ticular Id. at 459. As place a human upon appears observed the Court “[t]o naturally be more from a distance would dispose something implies that one has than to likely simply ignore it rather Thus, possession of it.” 73 at 627. wheth- attempt come closer to to ascertain even under the definition dissent’s actually corpse. So er the word, dispose one cannot with- draws of the statute while our construction assuming out possession or control of first unsatisfactory that make it lines Therefore, init some fashion. the term (see 459, Opinion at Dissenting dissent “disposes” in plain was used its and ordi- 460), its construction has the dissent’s nary sense of “get[s] rid “discard[s]” shortcomings as well. of.” Third WebsteR’s New InteRnational Fourth, importantly, perhaps and most DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE UNA- (1993); 654 that our Court’s while it is clear BRIDGED Blacks’ Dictio- Law to have No matter which definition is the facts not be deemed used, disposed of this case could establish that Jones clearly 456 to more than reasonably susceptible in this court compels

decision Brntina and is ambiguity ex- interpret the word “leaves” as used in “[W]hen one construction. sense, in section 194.125.1 its more limited they are ists in criminal statutes even if it could it equally be said that is state.” strictly against the more construed possible that the intended that 75, Withrow, 80 State v. 8 S.W.3d the word be construed its broader sense, matter, really does not because terms, does practical ambiguous, the statute would still be and mean? For of strict construction this rule the result would be the same. defin “[statutes that thing, it means one It has been the law of this state for interpreted as em not be ing crimes will century more than a that criminal statutes those acts or omissions bracing any but strictly against must be construed both within in the statute clearly described liberally State and favor of the defen the law.” State v. spirit the letter dant. 58, Fredrickson, (Mo.App. 61 S.W.2d 689 question presented The calls for the con- E.D.1984). may not be ex statutes Such In doing struction of a criminal statute. judicial interpreta enlarged by tended or so are to the intent of the we determine persons and acts not to embrace tion so as Legislature, making but this determi- unambiguously brought specifically nation ‘it is a fixed rule that such stat- Lloyd, v. 320 their terms. State within strictly against utes must be construed (1928). 344, 236, It also 346 Mo. 7 S.W.2d liberally the state and favor of is a fair doubt there “[i]f means defendant, that no to be made one is charged proved act whether the subject prosecution by impli- to criminal prohibition, within the embraced cation.’ in favor of the must be resolved doubt 403, Lancaster, 506 404

State v. S.W.2d Fredrickson, 689 at 61.9 S.W.2d accused.” (Mo.1974) Getty, 273 (quoting State v. however, dissent, not follow does (Mo.1954)).8 170, par- 172 This is S.W.2d applicable rule of strict construction where, here, the criminal ticularly so Rather than criminal statutes. ambiguous ambiguous statute under consideration is This, too, Corr., the law of Missouri has been Goings Dep’t 6 8. See also v. Mo. Jones, See, century. e.g., v. 899 State 906, 1999) (internal over (Mo. banc S.W.3d 908 126, E.D.1995) ("Any (Mo.App. S.W.2d 127 omitted) ("In construing quotation marks charged and whether the act doubt as to statute, guided by principle that we are prohibition embraced within proved is strictly must be construed criminal statutes accused.”); resolved in favor of must be against liberally in favor of the [s]tate 748, Kaiser, Mo. Anthony v. 350 58, defendant.”); Bartley, 304 Mo. 47, (1943) Taylor, 345 Mo. (quoting State v. 48 95, (1924) ("Criminal statutes 263 S.W. 96 (" 336, (1939)) 325, per- ‘No 341 liberally strictly; in favor are to be construed subject stat- [criminal] is to be made son state, defendant, strictly against and, doubts arise implication, when utes proof. charge and the No one both as to the doubts concerning interpretation, such their subject made to such statutes is to be ”); accused.' weigh in favor of are to Reid, 43, 28 implication.”); State v. 125 Mo. S.W. Sibley, Mo. State ("A (1894) rule of S.W. familiar (internal J., concurring) (1895) (Sherwood, is that construction of criminal statutes omitted) (noting that the rule quotation marks construed, strictly not extended and should be statutes criminal interpretation of of strict enlarged by judicial concerning so as to their inter- construction that “all doubts means plainly preponderate in favor persons not are to pretation embrace offenses and accused.”) terms.”) their within au- possible We no strictly construing 194.425.1 the accused. have liberally in favor of as embrac- against thority the State and to construe this law accused, the already the reasons that ex- ing the dissent an offense which is not liberally clearly, construed statute should it so written into pressly of the State the defen- against favor and by plainly necessarily implied and a broad could be interpretation dant since can fair- employs the law that we words public more inter- deemed beneficial by the ly say proscribed such offense is Dissenting Opinion at 459. And rath- est. all beyond law rational doubt. What is resolving in accused er than favor of the is not charged against the defendant the substantial doubt to whether the act it by law. To read into proscribed this charged proved by was em- State law construction would be us statutory prohibition, within the braced legislate adjudge, rather than to concludes that this doubt must the dissent this we are to do. forbidden in favor of be resolved the State. (internal omitted). citations long rejected a similar ago This court argues The dissent that argument McClary, State 399 S.W.2d McClary rationale and conclusion do not W.D.1966), (MoApp. where in this case due to the Missouri apply charged State defendant with misde- observation, in Supreme Court’s “ meanor for area for ‘operating disposal conduct that section 194.425.1 criminalizes refuse, garbage, rubbish and mak- Opin Dissenting that is malum in se. See for, ing application obtaining a license However, ” reading ion at a closer dumping ground.’ closely for a After of Bratina demonstrates that the Court examining County Dumping Option pro- mentioned the malum in se—malum Law, Ground this court “One observed: distinction to meet the defen hibitum normally expect legislature would that the argument process dant’s constitutional due would want to prohibition include such a (in phrases particular, that the statute a law of this nature and that would notice” law enforce “proper “proper declare it clear and unmistakable lan- officials”) uncer vague ment so the fact guage. Still remains that this was any him convey tain that it did “not not done. Whether this omission resulted understanding of under the law.” his duties from inadvertence or studied consideration at 628. “The standard for de say.” cannot court we Id. at 600. The whether is void for termining a statute further noted that con- the rule of strict vagueness is whether the terms words prevail though struction “must courts even usage in the statute of common used are may ought think that of ordi persons and are understandable have made a law comprehensive more Here, however, nary intelligence.” Id. we by failing to do that so it failed to accom- void-for-vague are not faced with a facial salutary plish purpose.” Id. at 599. challenge subject exacting ness to that reversing the conviction and defendant’s standard, simply question but statuto ordering that he be from his discharged Moreover, sentence, the dissent ry court concluded: construction. McClary authority proposition cites no for the enlarge law For us the terms of this long-standing and fundamental Missouri’s by construction to make it embrace to am applicable of strict construction and his be a rule defendant conduct would apply criminal statutes does not flagrant biguous violation that crimi- of the rule strictly being nal must when the criminal statute construed statutes be construed se.10 liberally in conduct is malum in against prohibits the state and favor 458 262, 604, in certainly say

The Court Bratina did not Krueger, State v. 134 Mo. 35 S.W. so, (1896) (“We in McClary, applied while this court only 606 can arrive at the despite allegedly rule the fact that legislature by language intention of the (unlicensed prohibited conduct operation act[J”) of used in the a public garbage dump) arguably ma- Thus, if even Bratina did not re lum se potential public in because it raised quire interpret this court to in its “leaves” event, In any health issues. this court sense, the narrower rule of strict construc long ago held that whether the forbidden tion compel of criminal statutes would us act is considered malum in se or malum case, to do so. In either the word “leaves” prohibitum, criminal defendant has the in used section 194.425.1would have to innocence, presumption of which can be placets], be construed to “put[s], mean de only by overcome evidence sufficient to posit[s], pro or before or in the delivers] prove beyond the violation a reasonable departing withdrawing” cess of O’Neal, City Stanberry doubt. v. 166 specified to be ... some con “cause[s] 709, 1104, Mo.App. 150 S.W. 1105-06 dition,” “permit[s] rather than to remain (1912). position.” undisturbed or in the same Furthermore, while it is true that Mis- THIRD NEW DIC WEBSTER’S INTERNATIONAL gleaned legis- souri courts have sometimes op English Language “ TIONARY Una purpose by considering object lative ‘the (1993). bridged 1287 legislature an accomplish seeks to with eye finding prob- towards resolution to the judgment of conviction is reversed ” therein,’ Dissenting lems addressed and the discharged defendant is ordered 460, Opinion “governed by at we are still from his sentence. legislature

what the said its own enact- ment, though might even we think an im- HOWARD, J., concurs. portant provision been has omitted SPINDEN, J., separate dissents in through impre- inadvertence” or the use of opinion filed. language. McClary, cise 399 S.W.2d Wallace, Gray As stated v. SPINDEN, Judge, dissenting. M. PAUL (Mo.1958): 582, must, however, 585 “We Jones, Jr., legislative being determine the intent from what William released legislature duty report said and not from what we from his Justin Hazlett’s merely say think the intended to to authorities because he it, he inadvertently say.” Accordingly, dragged failed to kicked the Had say, even a few to Hazlett’s front we are left with the Missouri inches— admonishment, Rowe, duty porch suddenly would have had a Court’s State v. —he (Mo. 2002), corpse’s location. This fine- “[leg- report banc S.W.3d can derived from the haired distinction makes little sense islative intent and, public policy, impor- terms more words of the statute itself.” Id. at 650 Fulton, contrary (citing Spradlin City tantly, it is to the General Assem- 194.425.1, 1998)); §in bly’s see also intent RSMo Knecht, tell, conduct, (n.s.) appears 28 Ohio N.P. 10. As best we can the rule to be (1930), that a more liberal construction in favor of strict not that the rule of construc- interpre- given in the the defendant should be entirely inapplicable when the criminal tion is prohi- are malum penal tation of laws which being prohibits statute construed conduct interpreta- bitum in their nature than in the is malum in se. in se malum penal prohibit tion of laws which however, We, not left are it? leaving fore to has declared Supreme the Court which can matter. We on this quandary Bra in a “commonly understood.” be the by employing the answer tina, readily find Court Supreme the dictionary that same concerning whether quandary I have no in Bratina. used duty a imposed § or not 194.425.1 location of Hazlett’s one can report the clear that dictionary Jones makes The The county authorities. Su- corpse “withdraw[ing] one’s by corpse a abandon ambiguity the preme Court resolved from help [it.]” or support, protection, Applying Id. language. in the statute’s DIC- INTERNATIONAL THIRD New WEBSTER’S in Bratina teaching Supreme Court’s Language English Una- TIONARY statutory along with the cardinal rule (1993). steps to one takes When BRIdged legisla- discern the construction —that we with- help, or support, protection, lend plain and by applying intent ture’s abandonment. of it constitutes drawal it uses ordinary meaning of the words that definition, one under Significantly, certain con- me to the its statute —leads in a object an loca- placed not have need affirm the circuit clusion that we should it. to have abandoned deemed tion judgment convicting Jones aban- court’s “dispose.” is true of “desert” The same doning corpse. “turnfing] away corpse by can desert a One [him]) (what engaged previously from has teaching of Bratina is clear. We

The or dis- withdrawing support especially] underlying concept of abandon- glean the duty” or or of attachment rupting bonds that the corpse of a from the terms ment :[by] breaking] ... § Assembly used in 194.425.1: “abandon[ing General it] breaking] off association away from or “abandons, deserts, or leaves.” disposes, a dispose can Id. at 610. One with “abandons,” “deserts,” [it.]” Although particular to a corpse by “assigning it] Supreme Court synonyms, “leaves” are In the at 654. position[.]” Id. place or ambiguous be- concluded that “leaves” was by “with- corpse way, one leaves same describing amenable to one’s cause from whether [it] ... drawing] [him]self a morti- upon body as well as happening [by] go[ing] permanently: or temporarily nonpaying leaving corpse cian’s on a :[by] ... from away departing] [it] or Id. at 627. It concluded porch. client’s or deliv- depositing], put[ting], placing], “abandons,” “disposes,” and “deserts” process in the of de- or ering before it] an inter- person[’s] having all “a required :[by] ... withdrawing [from it] parting to, in, body,” duty respect with est “leaves,” therefore, should, too. and that abandon[ing], deseRt[ing], FORSAK[lNG it] with terminating] association :[by] ... the am- Supreme The Court resolved Id. service of [it]:[by] quitting] [it.]” by declaring by “leaves” biguity presented at 1287. “abandons,” that, “dispos- with consistent “deserts,” es,” one can commit the from and remain afar did not Jones by leav- corpse crime of abandonment corpse. He with Hazlett’s uninvolved in, duty only if he has an interest ing it it, involved with got to it and up walked to, respect

with why his friend trying to determine cold of ground lying out on not tell us how Court does try to arouse kicked Hazlett to winter. He corpse must have in a much interest one that Hazlett was deciding him. After the crime of to have committed be deemed voluntarily ex- dead, his withdrew put Jones Does he have abandoning corpse. minimal as it help support and be- tended at the location place or to —as by walking away and instructing his corpses, risks involved with inhumanity the was— girlfriend police to lie to about their en- leaving of corpses lying around unattend- counter body. ed, with Hazlett’s plain the and the need for law enforcement au- ordinary sense of “leaves”—under- thorities to investigate any criminal activi- stood in a sense ty consistent with “aban- surrounding corpse, authorities dons,” “disposes,” and “deserts”—Jones would want to know that corpse abandoned Hazlett’s corpse. lying yard. unattended his front I think that would want to know of a Thus, employing plain ordinary leaving mortician’s a corpse nonpay- on a meaning §of 194.425.1’sterms leads me to ing porch, customer’s and I think that they the certain conclusion that Jones left Ha- surely would want to know about the § zlett’s corpse, and imposed 194.425.1 Huckleberry that Finn and his friend Jim him a duty report to corpse’s location found.1 proper Indeed, authorities. when a pedestrian statute uses a word interpret such as To applying only “leaves” as “leave,” the General Assembly right has a put when the defendant placed expect that apply we will corpse word’s in the location thwarts these “com plain ordinary meaning monly unless it purposes. understood” And it has makes that it clear intends a different encouraging the effect of an individual who 1.090, meaning. Section RSMo happens upon body, 2000. We it kicks and deter have assured legislature repeatedly person deceased, mines that the is to walk that this is the cardinal rule of statutory away without reporting the incident Blocker, construction. State v. 133 anyone. very S.W.3d I am doubtful that this is (Mo. 2004). banc Assembly what the General intended when § it enacted 194.425.1. in We must avoid spending After much time with the defi- terpretations that defeat a statute’s evi terms, § nitions of 194.425.1’s Supreme purpose. Quik- dent State ex rel. Nixon v. Bratina, Court noted in in its discussion of (Mo. Trip Corporation, 133 S.W.3d whether or not the vague, statute was that 2004); Ming banc v. General Motors Cor § 194.425.1 “criminalizes conduct that is poration, 668 (Mo.App. S.W.3d itself,” wrong or malum in se. 73 2004). S.W.3d at 628. This signifi- observation is because, cant in this case in a always gleaned legislative statute We have pur- criminalizing se, conduct that is malum in pose plain ordinary from the meaning “the evil being is remedied always is com- of a statute’s words consid- monly understood.” I agree object would eration of “the seeks that, given corpses, the nature accomplish eye of the evil with an finding towards § underlying certainly 194.425.1 is problems com- resolution to the addressed monly Revenue, understood. Because of health therein.” Gott v. Director of Supreme § apply The Court’s extensive discussion 194.425.1 would not to what he raised, it, Huckleberry confusing. merely answering of Finn is a bit did. It only point gleaned that I from its discussion the issue of whether or not he would face charges abandoning corpse of Mark Twain’s character was that "leaves” were Huck ambiguous living today. because it can describe both Finn a real character in Missouri matters, Huckleberry Finn did and a To extent that mortician’s it somehow leaving corpse nonpaying on a prose- customer’s seems to me that Huck Finn could be porch. Signifi- abandoning corpse 73 S.W.3d at 627. cuted for under the cantly, Supreme plain § ordinary meaning Court never said that 194.425.l's Huckleberry Finn did not leave the words. 155, 159 For consid- example, when the Court Missouri, Respondent, STATE 589.400, RSMo, § purpose ered the re- quiring register, sex offenders to it de- legislative clared the “obvious intent” REVELS,

protection Appellant. of “children from violence at the Frederick L. Beaird, hands of sex offenders.” 28 J.S. No. WD 2000) (emphasis 876 added). Appeals, Missouri Court District. Western light legislature’s use of com- statute, in a mon terms malum in se we Aug. in resorting lenity, err to the rule of a tool applicable only that is when all other rales Rehearing Motion for Transfer to and/or statutory fail. The rule of construction 4, 2005. Supreme Court Denied Oct. lenity applies interpretation of statute if, seizing everything after from which derived,

aid can be we can make no more guess than a legislature what the MO, Schlegel, City, Randall J. Kansas Wells, intended. United States v. 519 U.S. appellant. for 482, 499, S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (1997). require The rale does not that a Thompson, City, Curtis F. Jefferson given statute meaning, the narrowest MO, respondent. but “it if given is satisfied the words are meaning their fair mani- accord with the NEWTON, P.J., Before: fest intent of the lawmakers.” United BRECKENRIDGE, LOWENSTEIN Brown, 18, 26, States v. 333 U.S. S.Ct. JJ. (1948). 376, 92 L.Ed. teaching Given the clear we ORDER guess are not left to § intended in 194.425.1. merely We need PER CURIAM. give meaning its words their fair sought a second un- Appellant-acquittee § accord with commonly 194.425.1’s under- conditional release from a mental health purpose. Doing stood so should result 552.040, facility, pursuant to Section RSMo affirming judgment our the circuit court’s 84.16(b). 2000. Affirmed. Rule convicting Jones of abandonment

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Jones

Court Name: Missouri Court of Appeals

Date Published: Aug 16, 2005

Citation: 172 S.W.3d 448

Docket Number: WD 63842

Court Abbreviation: Mo. Ct. App.