Opinion ID: 2010322
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fraudulent Handling of Recordable Writing Convictions

Text: The defendant first argues that the fraudulent handling of recordable writing statute, RSA 638:2, is unconstitutionally vague. RSA 638:2 provides: A person is guilty of a class B felony if, with a purpose to deceive or injure anyone, he falsifies, destroys, removes or conceals any will, deed, mortgage, security instrument or other writing for which the law provides public recording. The defendant contends that this statute is impermissibly vague because it fails to give notice that cremation certificates are other writing[s] for which the law provides public recording. Although the defendant couches his argument in constitutional terms, in effect, he asserts that the fraudulent handling of recordable writing indictments fail to allege a crime because cremation certificates are not recordable writings within the meaning of the statute. In keeping with our practice of deciding constitutional issues only when necessary, see State v. Wamala, 158 N.H. 583, 592, 972 A.2d 1071 (2009), we will address only the defendant's implied statutory claim because it provides him the relief he seeks. We review a trial court's statutory interpretation de novo. State v. Horner, 153 N.H. 306, 309, 893 A.2d 683 (2006). We are the final arbiters of the legislative intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole. State v. Dansereau, 157 N.H. 596, 598, 956 A.2d 310 (2008). When interpreting a statute, we first look to the language of the statute itself, and, if possible, construe that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Petition of State of N.H. ( State v. Laporte ), 157 N.H. 229, 231, 950 A.2d 147 (2008). We do not strictly construe criminal statutes, however, but rather construe them according to the fair import of their terms and to promote justice. RSA 625:3 (2007). In RSA 638:2, the general phrase other writing for which the law provides public recording follows an enumerated list that includes wills, deeds, mortgages and security instruments. The principle of ejusdem generis provides that, where specific words in a statute follow general ones, the general words are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those enumerated by the specific words. State v. Meaney, 134 N.H. 741, 744, 599 A.2d 120 (1991). All of the enumerated documents are documents that affect property interests. The law provides for recording of these documents so as to give notice to all persons regarding the status of title to the property at issue. See 66 Am.Jur.2d Records and Recording Laws § 40, at 86 (2001). Recording statutes pertaining to deeds and mortgages, for instance, provide protection for those diligent enough to conduct a search of title records. Id. § 82, at 110. Their purpose is to protect subsequent judgment creditors, bona fide purchasers and bona fide mortgagees against the assertion of prior claims to land based upon any recordable but unrecorded instruments. Id. Cremation certificates, on the other hand, do not concern property interests and do not involve a similar need for public notice. Therefore, they are not similar in nature to the enumerated documents, and are not writing[s] for which the law provides public recording. Because cremation certificates are not recordable writings within the meaning of the statute, the defendant's conduct did not violate the statute. His fraudulent handling of recordable writing convictions, therefore, must be reversed. In light of our decision, we need not address the defendant's remaining arguments regarding his fraudulent handling of recordable writing convictions. We now turn to his arguments regarding his convictions for theft by unauthorized taking and theft by deception.