Opinion ID: 1940612
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Parents' Argument

Text: Prior to its repeal and re-enactment in 1977, SDCL 26-10-1 provided: It shall be a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person intentionally, negligently, or unnecessarily to expose, torture, torment, cruelly punish, or intentionally neglect any child under eighteen years of age or deprive such child of necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical attendance. 1977 S.D. Sess. Laws ch. 189, § 96 (emphasis added). The emphasized portion, inter alia, above was amended out in 1977. Also in 1977, SDCL 25-7-16 was changed reduc[ing] the ... offense from a Class 6 felony to a Class 1 misdemeanor ... which coincidentally was the pre-1977 offense level of SDCL 26-10-1. It is therefore reasoned by parents that inclusion of severe neglect by the trial court within the ambit of SDCL 26-10-1 was error. Parallel 1977 amendments of SDCL §§ 26-10-1 and 25-7-16 (as discussed above) are offered as authority for this assertion. Parents note some courts have stated that adoption of an amendment creates a presumption that the legislature intended to change preexisting law. Andros v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 359 N.W.2d 46, 48 (Minn.App.1984) (citing State v. Coin Wholesalers, Inc., 311 Minn. 346, 250 N.W.2d 583 (1976)). Parents also argue that since no statutory definition exists for abuse and torment (the acts alleged in Indictment), their ordinary and plain meaning should be used. They urge that to include severe neglect within the meaning of the above two words would be to judicially expand the language and reach of a statute which is something we have previously refused to do. See Petition of Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 882 (S.D.1984) (and authorities cited therein). Based on these arguments, parents argue their motions for acquittal were improperly denied.