Opinion ID: 2627519
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Arguments I and II

Text: [¶8] In his first argument, Schafer claims that if this Court allows a conviction for an attempt to threaten with a drawn deadly weapon to stand under Wyoming's general attempt statute, it will circumvent this Court's ruling in Johnston v. State, 747 P.2d 1132 (Wyo. 1987), which held that the mere possession of a drawn weapon does not constitute a threat. Schafer also contends that by allowing his conviction to stand, this Court will expand the scope of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2007) beyond the legislature's intentions. Schafer argues that a perpetrator either threatens to use a drawn weapon, or does not. He contends that it is not possible to attempt to make an actual threat of physical injury while employing a deadly weapon  rather, until the threat is actually made, there is no crime. [¶9] The State admits that because the crime of assault is traditionally described as an attempt itself, many courts have had difficulty with the concept of an attempted assault, in that such may be characterized as an attempt at attempted battery. Yet, the State insists that there can be such a thing as attempted attempt. [¶10] As we stated in Howard v. State, 2002 WY 40, ¶ 29, 42 P.3d 483, 492 (Wyo. 2002): When we analyze statutes, we endeavor to interpret them in accordance with the legislature's intent. We begin by making an inquiry respecting the ordinary and obvious meaning of the words employed according to their arrangement and connection. We construe the statute as a whole, giving effect to every word, clause, and sentence, and we construe together all parts of the statute in pari materia so that no part will be inoperative or superfluous. [Internal citations omitted.] [¶11] In considering the first question presented on appeal, we first look to the statutory language. Schafer was convicted under Wyoming's general attempt statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-301(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2007) as applied through Wyoming's aggravated assault and battery statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502 (LexisNexis 2007). The general attempt statute provides in part: (a) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if: .... (i) With the intent to commit the crime, he does any act which is a substantial step towards commission of the crime. A substantial step is conduct which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of the person's intention to complete the commission of the crime[.] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-301(a)(i) (LexisNexis 2007). The underlying crime Schafer was convicted of was threatening to use a weapon in violation of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-502(a)(iii) (LexisNexis 2007). In part, this statute provides that a person is guilty of aggravated assault and battery if he [t]hreatens to use a drawn deadly weapon on another unless reasonably necessary in defense of his person, property or abode or to prevent serious bodily injury to another. Essentially, Schafer was convicted of attempting to threaten to use a drawn deadly weapon on another. [¶12] The ultimate question in this appeal is whether the Wyoming Legislature intended attempted aggravated assault to be a criminal offense. The answer to the question, in this Court's estimation, is that the Legislature did not so intend. The general attempt statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-301 (LexisNexis 2007), is applicable to all crimes unless the specific criminal statute, in this case the aggravated assault and battery statute, also relates to attempts. This Court has generally described the reach of the general attempt statute as follows: [T]he general attempt statute is operative when applied to statutes where the legislature has not already spoken; and where the legislature has enacted a special statute making the attempt a crime, the special statute will prevail. This construction gives effect to both statutes and a policy that ambiguity concerning the application of criminal statutes should be resolved in favor of lenity. It is in conformance with     the principle that gives precedence to the terms of the more specific statute where a general statute and a specific statute speak to the same concern, even if the general provision was enacted later. [Citations] This guide to statutory construction has special cogency where a court is called upon to determine the extent of the punishment to which a criminal defendant is subject for his transgressions. In this context, the principle is a corollary of the rule of lenity, an outgrowth of our reluctance to increase or multiply punishments absent a clear and definite legislative directive. Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6, 98 S.Ct. 909, 914, 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978). Capwell v. State, 686 P.2d 1148, 1152-53. In this appeal, therefore, it is mandatory that this Court analyze the language of the aggravated assault and battery statute in order to determine if it covers the issue of attempt, thus precluding the overlay of the general attempt statute. [¶13] In full, § 6-2-502 reads: § 6-2-502. Aggravated assault and battery; penalty. (a) A person is guilty of aggravated assault and battery if he: (i) Causes serious bodily injury to another intentionally, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; (ii) Attempts to cause, or intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; (iii) Threatens to use a drawn deadly weapon on another unless reasonably necessary in defense of his person, property or abode or to prevent serious bodily injury to another; or (iv) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to a woman whom he knows is pregnant. (b) Aggravated assault and battery is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than ten (10) years. To loosely summarize the statute, a person is guilty of aggravated assault and battery if he: 1) seriously injures someone or injures a pregnant woman; 2) attempts to injure someone with a deadly weapon; or 3) threatens to injure someone with a drawn deadly weapon. [¶14] As can be seen, the statute specifically deals with the concept of attempt. The Wyoming Legislature has criminalized an attempt to injure in subsection (a)(ii). This subsection does not speak of an attempt to threaten. Neither does the subsection treating a threat to injure contain any reference to an attempt to threaten. There is a presumption in law that an omission is intentional where particular words or terms appear in one provision, but not in another related provision. Longfellow v. State, 803 P.2d 1383, 1387 (Wyo. 1991). [¶15] The intent of the Wyoming Legislature is manifest in its inclusion of attempt in subsection (a)(ii) and the omission of attempt from subsection (a)(iii). Given this specific language, we conclude the Wyoming Legislature did not intend for the general attempt statute to be applicable to the specific aggravated assault and battery statute. This is the only construction that can give effect to all the provisions of the statute, and ensure the manifest legislative intent is carried out. By overlaying the general attempt statute on the aggravated assault and battery statute, this Court would judicially establish a crime that the Wyoming Legislature never intended. See generally In re James M. , 510 P.2d 33 (Cal. 1973); Steven James Malamuth, Comment, A Final Assault on Attempted Assaults, 14 Santa Clara Lawyer 96 (1973). [¶16] At the very least, the language with regard to the concept of attempt in the aggravated assault and battery statute is ambiguous. This ambiguity calls into play the rule of lenity. Under the rule of lenity, criminal defendants receive the benefit of any ambiguity. Thus, the rule of lenity mandates the same result. [¶17] There is yet another reason that supports that the Wyoming Legislature did not intend the general attempt statute to apply to the aggravated assault and battery statute. The Wyoming Legislature has established a number of crimes that punish behavior which would fall within the definition of attempt to threaten. For instance, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-8-103 (LexisNexis 2007) criminalizes the possession of a deadly weapon with the intent to threaten the physical well-being of another. [1] Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-504 (LexisNexis 2007) criminalizes reckless actions, including the pointing of a firearm, that endanger others. [2] [¶18] We must read statutes in pari materia. In doing so, we conclude the Legislature never intended for the general attempt statute to be applied to the aggravated assault and battery statute. The crime as charged in this case simply does not exist except by judicial and prosecutorial creation. [¶19] In light of our determination that the offense with which Schafer was charged is not supported by Wyoming statutes, the judgment of the trial court must be reversed. Furthermore, our resolution of this issue resolves Schafer's second issue as well.