Charles H. Troutman also used charging as shorthand for the commencement of legal proceedings. See Troutman letter, Page 1. The distinction, if any, between the date of charging and the date of the commencement of legal proceedings is a distinction without a difference. The Appellee also raised concerns relating to the potential unfairness in allowing a prosecutor the discretion in selecting the forum to bring an action. These concerns were also brought to the attention of the Seventeenth Guam Legislature, which was then considering Bill 78.
Prosecutors already possess the discretion to charge.
Under the rules of statutory construction, this Court must give the statute a meaning consistent with the plain meaning of the words used and the legislative intent. Although the Defendant was seventeen when she allegedly committed the theft, she was charged when she was eighteen and she is, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Since this is not a case where the statutory language is ambiguous or capable of more than one interpretation, the Court need not choose from among alternative interpretations. The Court must give the statute the effect the Legislature had intended. The Legislature wanted to insure that Family Court jurisdiction was based on the age of the individual on the date on which legal proceedings were commenced.