Opinion ID: 2090076
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Mandatory Award Under Section 910.3B.

Text: Klawonn argues the legislature's use of the word shall in section 910.3B(1) should be interpreted to give the sentencing court some discretion in imposing this award. Sections 910.3B(1) states, In all criminal cases in which the offender is convicted of a felony ... [which] caused the death of another person, in addition to the amount determined to be payable and ordered to be paid to a victim for pecuniary damages, ... the court shall also order the offender to pay at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars in restitution to the victim's estate. Iowa Code § 910.3B(1) (emphasis added). The word may can be interpreted to mean shall where the context evidences such an intent. See State v. Berry, 247 N.W.2d 263, 265 (Iowa 1976). However, while the rule may work one way, it does not work the other. The word may can mean shall, but the word shall does not mean may. The legislature made this clear in drafting the Iowa Code when it said use of `shall' imposes a duty; while `may' confers a power. See Iowa Code § 4.1(30)(a), (c) (1997). Additionally, we have interpreted the term shall in a statute to create a mandatory duty, not discretion. See State v. Moyer, 382 N.W.2d 133, 134-35 (Iowa 1986); see also State v. Luckett, 387 N.W.2d 298, 301 (Iowa 1986) (use of shall creates mandatory action unless context clearly indicates otherwise). Finally, in Hansen v. Henderson , we said Sometimes courts are justified in interpreting the word `shall' as `may,' but, when used in a statute directing that a public body do certain acts, it is manifest that the word is to be construed as mandatory and not permissive. The uniform rule seems to be that the word `shall,' when addressed to public officials, is mandatory and excludes the idea of discretion. Hansen v. Henderson, 244 Iowa 650, 665, 56 N.W.2d 59, 67 (1952) (quoting City of Newton v. Board of Supervisors, 135 Iowa 27, 30, 112 N.W. 167, 168 (1907) (citations omitted)). We conclude the context of section 910.3B(1) clearly indicates the award is mandatory once the offender's felonious actions result in the loss of human life. The use of the word shall in section 910.3B(1) was intended to create not merely the power to impose, but rather the duty upon the sentencing court to impose a restitution award payable to the estate of at least $150,000.