Opinion ID: 3134859
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statutory Construction of Section 4

Text: The primary concern of the court when interpreting a statute is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Paris , 179 Ill. 2d at 177. Whenever possible, the court applies the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language. People ex rel. Devine v. $30,700.00 United States Currency , 199 Ill. 2d 142, 150 (2002). Only where the language of the statute is ambiguous may the court resort to other aids of statutory construction. People v. O’Brien , 197 Ill. 2d 88, 90-91 (2001). In addition, where a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts cannot read into the statute limitations, exceptions, or other conditions not expressed by the legislature. People ex rel. Devine , 199 Ill. 2d at 150-51. The court should evaluate a statutory provision as a whole rather than reading phrases in isolation. Paris , 179 Ill. 2d at 177. The court should construe a statute to give a reasonable meaning to all words and sentences so that no part is rendered superfluous. Sylvester v. Industrial Comm’n , 197 Ill. 2d 225, 232 (2001). Finally, courts may assume that the legislature did not intend absurdity, inconvenience or injustice to result from legislation. Burger v. Lutheran General Hospital , 198 Ill. 2d 21, 40 (2001). Section 4, the general savings clause of Illinois, first passed in 1874, states: “No new law shall be construed to repeal a former law, whether such former law is expressly repealed or not, as to any offense committed against the former law, or as to any act done, any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred, or any right accrued, or claim arising under the former law, or in any way whatever to affect any such offense or act so committed or done, or any penalty, forfeiture or punishment so incurred, or any right accrued, or claim arising before the new law takes effect, save only that the proceedings thereafter shall conform, so far as practicable, to the laws in force at the time of such proceeding . If any penalty, forfeiture or punishment be mitigated by any provisions of a new law, such provision may, by the consent of the party affected, be applied to any judgment pronounced after the new law takes effect. This section shall extend to all repeals, either by express words or by implication, whether the repeal is in the act making any new provision upon the same subject or in any other act .” (Emphases added.) 5 ILCS 70/4 (West 2000). In People v. Speroni , (footnote: 1) the appellate court interpreted “ ‘No new law shall be construed,’ ” at the start of the provision, and the first italicized phrase to mean that section 4 is applicable only to amendments and not to outright repeals. People v. Speroni , 273 Ill. App. 572, 577-78 (1934). Defendant argues that, under Speroni , section 4 should not preserve her conviction because the crime of which defendant was convicted was repealed outright. This court, however, has criticized the Speroni analysis in Bilderback . We said: “This conclusion [by the Speroni court] of course wholly disregards the last sentence of section 4.” Bilderback , 9 Ill. 2d at 180. Statutory construction principles require the court to apply the plain and ordinary meaning of the statutory language whenever possible. People ex. rel Devine , 199 Ill. 2d at 150. This final sentence provides that section 4 applies to both express and implied repeals, regardless of where the repealing language is located. This sentence confirms the broad applicability of section 4 rather than restricts it, as defendant suggests. We now expressly hold what we implied in Bilderback : section 4 applies to both outright repeals and amendments. In addition, we give a different interpretation to the first italicized phrase of section 4 than did the Speroni court. This is the first time we have interpreted this phrase directly. When interpreting a statute, the court should evaluate a statutory provision as a whole rather than reading phrases in isolation. O’Brien , 197 Ill. 2d at 91. The court should construe a statute to give a reasonable meaning to all words and sentences so that no part is rendered superfluous. Sylvester , 197 Ill. 2d at 232. Section 4 starts with a prohibition on construing a new statute to affect penalties, punishments, or rights accrued; this forbids retroactive application of substantive changes to statutes. The italicized portion, beginning with “save only,” allows proceedings to conform to the present law; this allows retroactive application of procedural changes to statutes. Therefore, we read the first italicized part of section 4 above to require that retroactive application of amendments or repeals in criminal statutes is permissible only if such changes are procedural in nature. We expressly reject the holding of Speroni to the extent that it is inconsistent with this interpretation. We note that our present interpretation of this clause in section 4 is consistent with an interpretation of nearly identical statutory language in our sister state of West Virginia. West Virginia’s general savings clause provides in part: “The repeal of a law, or its expiration by virtue of any provision contained therein, shall not affect any offense committed, or penalty or punishment incurred, before the repeal took effect, or the law expired, save only that the proceedings thereafter had shall conform as far as practicable to the laws in force at the time such proceedings take place , unless otherwise specially provided .” (Emphasis added.) W. Va. Code §2–2–8 (2002). When interpreting the italicized portion of this provision, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia explained: “Even should it be conceded, as claimed, that Sec. 15 of Chap. 144 of the Code was repealed by the Act of 1920-21, the offense if committed before the repeal is kept alive and also the penalty. The procedure alone is affected; it must conform to the new law as far as practicable.” State v. Sanney , 91 W. Va. 477, 480-81, 113 S.E. 762, 764 (1922). Only procedural changes are given retroactive application under this substantially identical savings clause language.