Case Title: State v. Odegaard

Citation: 165 N.W.2d 677

Docket Number: 

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1969-02-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
165 N.W.2d 677 (1969) STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Harold J. ODEGAARD, Defendant and Appellant. Cr. 379. Supreme Court of North Dakota. February 25, 1969. Lanier & Knox, Fargo, for appellant. Helgi Johanneson, Atty. Gen., Bismarck, and Eugene Kruger, State's Atty. for Cass *678 County, and Russell D. Maring, Asst. State's Atty. for Cass County, Fargo, for respondent. ERICKSTAD, Judge. In this appeal we are asked to determine the constitutionality of a statute which, with certain exceptions, requires the operator of or a passenger on a motorcycle to wear a crash helmet. By criminal information dated October 17, 1967, Mr. Harold J. Odegaard was charged with the offense of failing to wear a crash helmet while riding a motorcycle. Although we have only an abbreviated transcript of the trial court proceedings, it appears from that transcript and from Mr. Odegaard's brief that when the case came on for trial before the Cass County Court with Increased Jurisdiction, Mr. Odegaard stipulated that the facts were as set out in the criminal information; that he moved that the information be dismissed upon the grounds that the statute upon which it was based was unconstitutional; that this motion was denied by the trial court; that thereafter the trial court found Mr. Odegaard guilty of the offense charged in the information; that Mr. Odegaard before the imposition of sentence made a motion in arrest of judgment, again asserting the unconstitutionality of the statute; that this motion was also denied by the trial court; and that following the imposition of sentence, Mr. Odegaard appealed to this court. In his notice of appeal he asserts that he appeals from the order denying his motion for dismissal, the judgment of conviction, and the order denying his motion in arrest of judgment. As all of the specifications of error are based upon his contention that the statute under which he was prosecuted is unconstitutional, that is the issue we must determine on this appeal. The statute in controversy reads: North Dakota Century Code. We may assume that one objective of this statute is the prevention or reduction of injuries to motorcyclists. We also take judicial notice of the fact that head injuries often occur when motorcyclists not protected by crash helmets are involved in accidents and that crash helmets are of some protection against such injuries. Mr. Odegaard in effect asserts that for this reason the statute is unconstitutional. His argument is that in spite of what he denominates "the beneficent motives" of the statute, it must fail because it affects only his welfare and not the public welfare, and thus it deprives him of his personal freedom and his rights guaranteed by the due process clauses of the federal and state constitutions. He specifically enumerates §§ 1 and 13 of Article I of the North Dakota Constitution and the 9th and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution as being violated by this statute. The pertinent parts of those sections and amendments read: Section 1. All men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. North Dakota Constitution. United States Constitution. It is Mr. Odegaard's contention that the issue resolves itself into this question: "Is it constitutionally permissible for the state to abridge the liberty of an individual by compelling him, contrary to his desires, to adhere to a course of conduct ostensibly calculated to protect him from possible harm when such conduct has no relationship to the health, safety and welfare of other persons or the public at large?" On first impression it may appear that whether a person wears a crash helmet or not affects only that person's welfare, but on careful consideration it becomes obvious that this is not true. Before we discuss that issue, however, we point out that even if it were true, we do not concede that the statute would be unconstitutional, for we are not convinced that the legislature may not take reasonable measures to prevent persons from becoming public charges, which often is the result of the costs of long hospitalization in brain injury cases. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island recently said: The defendant's contention to the contrary presupposes that protection for the motorcycle operator was the sole motivation for the general assembly's action. Even if this were so, we are not persuaded that the legislature is powerless to prohibit individuals from pursuing a course of conduct which could conceivably result in their becoming public charges. * * * Considering the relationship of the statute requiring the wearing of crash helmets to highway safety and the exercise of valid police power, the Rhode Island court said: State ex rel. Colvin v. Lombardi, supra, 627. As recently as June 1968 the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a statute similar to ours. We quote a part of its opinion: Commonwealth v. Howie, 238 N.E.2d 373, 374 (Mass.1968). Mr. Odegaard has referred us to two intermediate appellate court decisions construing the constitutionality of crash helmet laws. The first is American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Davids, 11 Mich.App. 351, 158 N.W.2d 72, decided by the Court of Appeals of Michigan. That court, applying the maxim stated by John Stuart Mill that "the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, insofar as these concern the interests of no person but himself," held the Michigan statute unconstitutional. The Massachusetts court in Howie disposed of the Michigan decision as follows: Commonwealth v. Howie, supra, 374. In reaching its conclusion the Michigan court applied the following test: See State v. Cromwell, 72 N.D. 565, 9 N.W.2d 914, 920-921 (1943), for statement of a similar test by this court. The second intermediate appellate court decision referred to us by Mr. Odegaard is Everhardt v. City of New Orleans, 208 So. 2d 423 (1968). This decision is not the final word in Louisiana, as certiorari has been granted by the Louisiana Supreme Court. See Everhardt v. City of New Orleans, 252 La. 269, 210 So. 2d 508 (1968). Notwithstanding that the Louisiana Court of Appeal found the ordinance in question unconstitutional, we find no reason stated in the opinion which persuades us that our statute is unconstitutional. We believe the test applied in American Motorcycle Ass'n is proper, but in applying it we reach the opposite result. It is our view that the Rhode Island and Massachusetts opinions, in light of the interrelating elements of highway safety, are the better reasoned opinions. Accordingly, we have no difficulty in finding the existence of a real and substantial relationship between the exercise of the police powers contained in our crash helmet statute and the public health, safety, and welfare. It follows that the statute in no way violates any of the provisions of our state and federal constitutions. As a dissent to this opinion has been written, we shall consider the issue which it raises. That issue, not raised by any of the parties to this action, is whether this court has jurisdiction of the subject matter. The dissent argues that § 1 of chapter 322 of the 1967 session laws, upon which the criminal information in this case is based, does not set forth a crime, and that therefore this court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter and for that reason cannot reach the merits of the controversy, *681 i.e., the constitutionality of that section. As always, it is our duty in construing a statute to attempt to determine the legislative intent. In so doing we cannot assume that the legislature intended a useless act. The construction placed upon this statute by the dissent makes the act a useless one. The dissent asserts that proceedings to enforce the act must be civil in nature, but it fails to explain how any civil proceeding could make the statute effective. As we have indicated earlier, it is our view that this act has as one of its major objectives highway and traffic safety. In this regard, following an interim legislative research study, H.B. 529 was introduced in the 1963 legislative session. Section 19 of that bill created a chapter on equipment of vehicles and gave the Motor Vehicle Registrar broad authority. The following is the pertinent part of the penalty provision contained in H.B. 529: Laws of North Dakota 1963, ch. 283, § 3, at 510. Although the legislature, in enacting H. B. 595, which is now ch. 322 of the 1967 session laws (the crash helmet statute), did not specifically assert that it should be a part of N.D.C.C. ch. 39-21, from its content it is obvious that § 1 thereof relates to equipment that must be used when operating or riding a motorcycle. It also places authority for establishing standards with the Motor Vehicle Registrar, as did H.B. 529, ch. 283 of the 1963 session laws (now N.D.C.C. ch. 39-21). In referring to N.D. C.C. § 39-01-01 (32a) the legislature further tied the act into title 39, which is the title on motor vehicles, § 39-01-01 being the section on definitions. Accordingly, we believe the legislature may well have intended that the penalty provisions of § 39-21-46 should apply. As it failed to specifically so provide, however, we must search elsewhere for the applicable penalty. In that respect § 39-07-06 might reasonably apply. It provides a general penalty for the violation of any of the provisions of the title on motor vehicles not otherwise covered. We do not rely on that section, however, as the legislature did not specifically place the crash helmet statute under the motor vehicle title. It is our view that under these circumstances N.D.C.C. §§ 12-17-27 and 12-06-14 apply: North Dakota Century Code. The dissent asserts that § 12-17-27 does not apply because it does not embrace *682 within its definition the omission of the performance of an act commanded by a statute. It is interesting, however, that just prior to the expression of that view in the dissent it is stated that "A crime is defined by our statute as `an act committed or omitted in violation of a statute forbidding or commanding it * * *' Section 12-01-06, N.D.C.C." Is not the failure to wear a crash helmet when the wearing of such a helmet is commanded by a statute the omission of an act in violation of a statute commanding it? The cases cited in support of the dissent's position that the crash helmet statute does not set forth a crime are Langer v. Goode, 21 N.D. 462, 131 N.W. 258, Ann. Cas.1913D, 429 (1911) and Brissman v. Thistlethwaite, 49 N.D. 417, 192 N.W. 85 (1922). Let us analyze those cases: The first is a civil, not a criminal, case, in which the plaintiff sought to recover from the defendant damages alleged to have accrued to the plaintiff by reason of the defendant's failure to destroy certain wild mustard growing on his farm. Under the statute the county commissioners were to have prescribed the time and manner of destroying noxious weeds, and this they had not done. The plaintiff was not permitted to recover civil damages for the defendant's failure to destroy the wild mustard because the county commissioners had failed to perform their duty. In the instant case it is not asserted that the Motor Vehicle Registrar did not fulfill his duty under the act. What the dissent relies upon is dictum contained in the opinion that Langer v. Goode, supra, 131 N.W. 259. The dissent's authority is not only dictum: it is dictum without citation of any authority. Reason does not uphold it. It is our view that the requirement that a person who operates or rides a motorcycle wear a crash helmet is meaningless if it is not construed as a prohibition against operating or riding a motorcycle unless a crash helmet is worn. The reason for the holding in the second case cited by the dissent is not stated in the dissent, but it is clear from the following quotation from that case: The last section in the act reads thus: Hence, we do not have a situation where the Legislature passing a law, either intentionally or otherwise, failed to consider the question of its violation and make provision therefor. Here the Legislature considered that question, and stated what acts should be punishable as violative of the act. It is a maxim of the law that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. The rule of construction thus expressed is applicable here. Where, as here, a statute purports to regulate the carrying on of a vocation or profession not formerly subject to regulation, and designates certain acts and a certain class of persons as subject to its penalties, the acts and persons so designated are exclusive and all other acts and persons are deemed to be exempted. 2 Lewis' Sutherland Stat. Const. (2d Ed.) § 491, pp. 916-918. * * *683 Brissman v. Thistlethwaite, supra, 192 N.W. 88-89. The most recent decision of our court which we have found applying §§ 12-17-27 and 12-06-14 is that of State v. Prince, 75 N.D. 386, 28 N.W.2d 538 (1947). In that case the defendant asserted that as no penalty was provided for in the statute under which he was prosecuted, it did not set forth a crime. The pertinent statute read: No person shall sell or deliver any beer, alcohol or alcoholic beverages to any person under the age of 21 years, incompetent person, Indian as defined by federal law, or a person who is an inebriate, or habitual drunkard. Laws of N.D.1945, ch. 52, § 1, at 107. In that case the defendant was charged with having sold intoxicating liquor to a minor. In holding that the statute under which the defendant was prosecuted set forth a crime, and that the trial court had the power to impose a criminal penalty, the court applied N.D.R.C.1943 §§ 12-1727 and 12-0614. Syllabus 3 of the opinion reads: State v. Prince, supra, 28 N.W.2d 539. Sections 12-1727 and 12-0614 of the Revised Code of 1943 are identical to Sections 12-17-27 and 12-06-14 of the Century Code. Although the language of the statute construed in Prince is more clearly prohibitory than the language of the statute in the instant case, we believe it would be a very strained construction to view the language of the statute here as other than prohibitory, for if one is required to wear a crash helmet when operating or riding a motorcycle, he must certainly be prohibited from operating or riding a motorcycle when not wearing a crash helmet. Construing §§ 12-01-06, 12-17-27, and 12-06-14 in such a way that they are not in conflict, we conclude that the crash helmet statute sets forth a crime, and that therefore this court had not only the jurisdiction to act but also the obligation to reach the merits of the controversy presented to us. In light of what we have previously said herein on the merits and what we have now concluded with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, we affirm the orders and judgment of the trial court. STRUTZ and PAULSON, JJ., concur. TEIGEN, Chief Justice (dissenting). I dissent on the ground that failure to comply with the requirements of Section 39-21-48, Subsection 1, N.D.C.C., is not a crime and therefore the trial court and this Court on appeal do not have jurisdiction of the subject matter. Therefore we cannot reach the constitutional question. Criminal jurisdiction is that which exists for the punishment of crimes. The court derives its jurisdiction in criminal cases from the law and its jurisdiction extends only to such matters as the law declares criminal, and when a court undertakes to punish for an offense to which no criminality is attached, it acts beyond its jurisdiction. In re Corryell, 22 Cal. 179, 7 P. 178; Ex parte Rickey, 31 Nev. 82, 100 P. 134; 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, Secs. 376 and 379; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law §§ 107 and 108. A crime in this State is defined by statute as follows: The above statute does not purport to create a crime or to impose any penalty or punishment whatsoever upon one who operates a motorcycle or rides as a passenger thereon while not wearing a crash helmet. The statute requiring every operator of and passenger on a motorcycle to wear a crash helmet when such motorcycle is in motion does not provide that failure to comply with the statutory provision constitutes a crime, a misdemeanor, an offense, or any other term used to define a crime, nor does it directly or by reference impose a penalty. The statute legislates upon a subject not heretofore governed. It is a new statute. Standing alone, the statute is not penal and it does not incorporate by reference any other statute that would make it penal. We have said that penal statutes are to be fairly construed according to the legislative intent as expressed in the enactment, the court refusing, on the one hand, to extend the punishment to cases which are not clearly embraced in them, and on the other, equally refusing, by any mere verbal nicety or forced consideration or equitable interpretation, to exonerate parties plainly within their scope. State v. Fargo Bottling Works Co., 19 N.D. 396, 124 N.W. 387, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 872. A criminal statute must be definite and certain in respect to the punishment it is intended to impose. Smith v. United States, 10 Cir., 145 F.2d 643, cert. denied, 323 U.S. 803, 65 S. Ct. 563, 89 L. Ed. 641. Statutes are not to be enlarged by construction or extended by inference to include acts not within the terms of the language defining crimes. State v. Clark, 67 S.D. 133, 290 N.W. 237; Nelson v. United States, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 392, 288 F.2d 376; United States v. Resnick, 299 U.S. 207, 57 S. Ct. 126, 81 L. Ed. 127; Fasulo v. United States, 272 U.S. 620, 47 S. Ct. 200, 71 L. Ed. 443. Where a crime is charged it must have a clear legislative basis. Nelson v. United States, supra; United States v. George, 228 U.S. 14, 33 S. Ct. 412, 57 L. Ed. 712. The question then arises: Does the alleged criminal information charge a crime at all? Chapter 322 of the Session Laws of 1967 was designated as Section 39-21-48 *685 in the 1967 pocket supplement to Volume 7 of the North Dakota Century Code by authority of the legislative assembly under the supervision and with the assistance of the legislative research committee and the secretary of state. The section number, 39-21-48, was not designated by the legislature in the enactment of the statute. The designation was an administrative decision by the legislative research committee and the secretary of state. Title 39 of the North Dakota Century is entitled "Motor Vehicles" and I assume the statute was given title number 39 because that is the title referred in the statute which defines a motorcycle. However, it is not the motorcycle or its operation that is governed by the statute in question. The statute governs the "operator of and the passenger on" a motorcycle. Subsection 32a of Section 39-01-01 defines a motorcycle and the section number was inserted in the statute for that purpose only. Thus the statute is not directed to the motorcycle nor the operation thereof, but creates a duty imposed upon a person to wear a crash helmet under the conditions described in the statute. Title 39 governs motor vehicles and provides rules and regulations pertaining to the operation of motor vehicles, equipment, size, width, height, etc. Although a motorcycle is a motor vehicle [Section 39-01-01, Subsection 32a] it is not the motorcycle, its operation or equipment, that is governed by the statute here under consideration. Section 39-07-06, N.D.C.C., is a general penalty provision contained in Title 39. It provides that any person violating any of the provisions of Title 39 for which another penalty is not provided specifically shall be subject to punishment as provided in that section. However, this section is not applicable to Chapter 322 of the Session Laws of 1967 for the reasons given above and for the further reason that this chapter was not classified by the legislature in its enactment of Chapter 322 of the Session Laws of 1967 as coming within Title 39. Furthermore, Chapter 322 of the Session Laws of 1967 is not specially designed to affect the operator of or passenger on a motorcycle in motion upon a highway or street. It is all-encompassing as to place. The motor vehicle laws deal with motor vehicles in relation to their use on the highways and streets. The only requirement to make Chapter 322 of the Session Laws of 1967 operative is that the motorcycle be in motion, wherever that may be. I believe the statute was classified under Title 39 for convenience and indexing purposes only. For the reasons aforesaid it is my opinion that Section 39-07-06, N.D.C.C., providing for a general penalty for violations of Title 39, is not applicable to Chapter 322 of the Session Laws of 1967 and does not make its violation a crime. The next question is: Does Section 12-17-27, N.D.C.C., apply? It provides: *686 This is a general provision intended to apply in those cases where the legislature has enacted a law declaring certain acts to be prohibited or unlawful but prescribes no punishment for the violation thereof. A crime or public offense is defined by statute in North Dakota. Section 12-01-06, N.D.C.C. In North Dakota all crimes are statutory and no act is criminal unless the legislature has in express terms declared it to be so. In this state there is no common law in any case where the law is declared by the code. Section 1-01-06, N. D.C.C. The will of the State as a sovereign is expressed by its constitution, its statutes, and the decisions of its tribunals enforcing those rules. Section 1-01-03, N.D.C.C. A crime is defined by our statute as "an act committed or omitted in violation of a statute forbidding or commanding it * *" Section 12-01-06, N.D.C.C. Section 12-17-27, N.D.C.C., purports to prescribe an act as a misdemeanor where the performance of the act is prohibited. It does not embrace within its definition the omission of the performance of an act commanded by a statue. In Langer v. Goode, 21 N.D. 462, 131 N.W. 258, this Court in a civil action for the recovery of damages against a neighbor, on the theory that the defendant's neighbor, contrary to law, permitted noxious weeds to grow and bear seed, injuring the plaintiff, held in construing the statute requiring that noxious weeds should be destroyed, that "there is a difference between omitting to do something which is required to be done by the statute, and the doing of something which is prohibited by the statute." The Court, in that case, concluded that "Section 8760 of the Revised Code [this is now Section 12-17-27, N.D.C.C.] makes it a crime to do any act the performance of which is prohibited by statute in cases where no penalty for the violation of the statute is imposed under any statute, but this section cannot be construed so as to make it a criminal offense to fail to do an act which may be required by statute." Chapter 322 of the Session Laws of 1967 (Section 39-21-48, N.D.C.C.) does not prohibit or forbid an act; it requires one. For these reasons it is my opinion that Section 12-17-27, N.D.C.C., does not make a failure to wear a crash helmet, under the circumstances described in the statute, a criminal offense or a crime. A similar result is obtained by this Court in Brissman v. Thistlethwaite, 49 N.D. 417, 192 N.W. 85. In that case an alleged criminal complaint charged that the defendant practiced as an accountant and assumed the title of certified public accountant without having received his certificate as a certified public accountant from the board of accountancy. The statute in question, under which the defendant was charged, provided: The Act containing that part of the statute quoted above contained a penalty clause but the penalty clause did not embrace or define as a crime one assuming the title of a certified public accountant of this state by misrepresenting himself as such because he had not received a certificate as a public accountant. This Court, in disposing of the action by dismissal, stated: In the instant case the statute under the circumstances described therein requires that a crash helmet be worn. The statute does not declare that failure to wear a crash helmet is a crime or an offense, nor does it prescribe a penalty. The general penalty statutes are not applicable for the reasons heretofore stated. Thus the violation of the requirement of the statute that a crash helmet be worn does not constitute a crime. The violation of the statute in question is not made a crime and therefore a criminal prosecution is barred. Proceedings to enforce it must therefore be civil in nature. The court has no jurisdiction of the subject matter where the information charges as a crime the omission of an act which is not made a crime by statute. Jurisdiction of the subject matter cannot be conferred by consent or waiver of the parties. It is derived solely from the law. When it is ascertained that no jurisdiction exists, the court can go no further and no consideration of policy or convenience should induce the court to render a decision that would be merely advisory. Danforth v. City of Yankton, 71 S.D. 406, 25 N.W.2d 50. I conclude the appeal should be dismissed with direction to the lower court to set aside its judgment of conviction and sentence, and to dismiss the action. As an addendum to my dissent I must make the observation that Section 39-21-46, N.D.C.C., cited by the majority in answer to my dissent, was enacted by the 1963 session of the Legislature as Chapter 283, whereas Chapter 322 (the crash helmet statute) was enacted in 1967, four years later. No reference is made in Chapter 322 of the Session Laws of 1967 to Section 39-21-46 or Chapter 283 of the Session Laws of 1963, nor to any of the subject matters of that chapter. Certainly it was not the intent of the Legislature that Section 39-21-46 apply. It is obvious the majority are confused, and rightly so, because the Legislature provided no penalty for a violation of the crash helmet statute. In the majority's opinion, in answer to my dissent, they say: Thus the majority have pointed out three penalty provisions in our code but are unable to say specifically that any one of them applies to the crash helmet statute. They conclude, however, that in view of this conundrum Sections 12-17-27 and 12-06-14 apply. It is a strained construction. KNUDSON, J., concurs in the dissent of TEIGEN, C.J.