Opinion ID: 2600221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statutory Interpretation of RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v)

Text: Statutory interpretation is a question of law and we review the interpretation of RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v) de novo. See State v. J.P., 149 Wash.2d 444, 449, 69 P.3d 318 (2003). RCW 13.04.030 allows the juvenile court exclusive jurisdiction over juvenile offenses unless certain circumstances arise. Here, we are only concerned with RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v). This section automatically transfers jurisdiction to the adult court if [t]he juvenile is sixteen or seventeen years old and the alleged offense is an enumerated crime. RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v)(A)-(E). The statutory automatic transfer is an exception to the normal decline procedures and does not require or permit a decline hearing. See RCW 13.40.110 (explaining normal decline hearing process); Boot, 130 Wash.2d at 557, 925 P.2d 964 (interpreting what is now RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v)(A) and (B)). Therefore, if the statute applies to a defendant, the juvenile court does not have discretion to assign juvenile court jurisdiction and the defendant cannot be prejudiced based on loss of juvenile court jurisdiction. The two elements in RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v) that trigger automatic decline are (1) the age of the offender and (2) the nature of the offense. Here, the nature of the offense clearly falls within the statute because Salavea was charged with first degree rape of a child. [3] RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v)(C). However, Salavea and amicus argue that the age element was not met because the age at the time of commission of the crime, rather than the age at the time of proceedings, is controlling. Based on this interpretation, Salavea concludes that the statute does not apply to him because he was only 13-15 years of age when he committed the crimes. In light of previous case law, the clear wording of the statute, and legislative intent we disagree with Salavea and find the age of the individual at the time of the proceedings is the controlling age. Although the offenses occurred when Salavea was ages 13-15, the earliest the State could charge and try Salavea was after he was 16. Therefore, the age prerequisite is satisfied, the court did not have discretion to assign juvenile court jurisdiction, and Salavea fails to prove prejudice.
Washington precedent supports the premise that absent intentional or negligent prosecutorial delay, jurisdiction over offenses committed by a juvenile is to be determined at the time proceedings are instituted against the offender. Calderon, 102 Wash.2d at 351-52, 684 P.2d 1293; Sweet v. Porter, 75 Wash.2d 869, 870, 454 P.2d 219 (1969) (stating that determination of jurisdiction is based on the date of trial, not the date of the arrest, information, or plea); State v. Setala, 13 Wash.App. 604, 606-07, 536 P.2d 176 (1975); State v. Bushnell, 38 Wash.App. 809, 811, 690 P.2d 601 (1984). In Calderon the court was not applying the automatic decline statute. However, like Salavea, the defendant argued that jurisdiction should be based on the age at commission of the crime, not the age when proceedings were instituted. The court rejected the argument and held that juvenile court jurisdiction ends when a defendant becomes 18 unless jurisdiction has been extended by law. Calderon, 102 Wash.2d at 349, 684 P.2d 1293; see also id. at 350-52, 684 P.2d 1293 (discussing and upholding State v. Ring, 54 Wash.2d 250, 339 P.2d 461 (1959), and State v. Kramer, 72 Wash.2d 904, 435 P.2d 970 (1967)). [4] Therefore, it is clear that Calderon and its progeny support reading the age element in RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v) as age of the defendant at the time of the proceedings, regardless of age at commission of the crime.
When a statute is clear on its face and unambiguous, the court does not have to engage in an interpretation of the language. State v. Q.D., 102 Wash.2d 19, 29, 685 P.2d 557 (1984). Statutory inquiry ends with the plain language of the statute and the court assumes the legislature `means exactly what it says.' State v. Delgado, 148 Wash.2d 723, 727-28, 63 P.3d 792 (2003) (quoting Davis v. Dep't of Licensing, 137 Wash.2d 957, 964, 977 P.2d 554 (1999)) (noting that words and clauses are not added to unambiguous statutes and criminal statutes are interpreted in a literal and strict manner). In Boot the court found RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v)(A) and (B) unambiguous and concluded that [t]he legislature set up `exclusive original jurisdiction' in adult court over juveniles 16 or 17 years of age who committed the enumerated violent offenses. 130 Wash.2d at 565, 925 P.2d 964. [5] Although Salavea's crimes come under subsection (C) of the statute, the same age prerequisite applicable to subsections (A) and (B) is applicable to subsection (C). Therefore, the court's conclusion clearly finding the statute unambiguous is applicable to this case. [6] Salavea and amicus argue that the statute may be ambiguous, or conversely is unambiguous but should be interpreted to mean age at commission of the crime. Part of this analysis is based on Salavea's interpretation of the court's language in Boot. Salavea argues that the court's use of commit and committed, in reference to application of the automatic decline statute, reflects the court's desire to interpret the age element as age at the time of commission. See Boot, 130 Wash.2d at 563, 573, 925 P.2d 964 (using commit), 560-61, 565, 925 P.2d 964 (using committed). [7] However, Boot cites Calderon and specifically upholds determination of jurisdiction based on the age of the defendant at the time of the proceedings. Id. at 575, 925 P.2d 964. Therefore, regardless of how the court used commit in its opinion, it is clear that Boot did not hold the age element in RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v) refers to age at the time of commission of the crime. [8] Moreover, if the legislature wanted the age element in RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v) to refer to age at the time of commission, it could have used language indicating this. As we have previously held, the court cannot add words or clauses to an unambiguous statute when the legislature has chosen not to include that language. [9] Delgado, 148 Wash.2d at 727, 63 P.3d 792. We reaffirm Boot and Calderon, and find the statute unambiguously refers to age at the time of the proceedings.
Additionally, our reading of the statute upholds the intent of the legislature in enacting the automatic decline provision. The legislature wanted to address the problem of youth violence by increasing the severity and certainty of punishment for youth who commit violent acts as opposed to youthful offenders who commit other crimes. State v. Mora, 138 Wash.2d 43, 50, 54, 977 P.2d 564 (1999) (focusing on the seriousness of the offense); see Boot, 130 Wash.2d at 562-63, 566, 925 P.2d 964 (listing the six purposes of the bill enacting the automatic decline provision and citing Laws of 1994, 1st Spec. Sess., ch. 7, § 101). Automatically declining juveniles who commit certain offenses and are tried when they are 16 or 17 years of age properly would serve the intent of the legislature. Salavea and amicus argue that adopting the State's interpretation would result in an absurd result. They fear that a juvenile who commits an enumerated offense at age 9, but is not prosecuted until age 16, will not receive a decline hearing. However, a juvenile who commits an offense at age 14 and is prosecuted at age 15 will receive a decline hearing. This interpretation leads to an unjust result because it may allow the prosecution to circumvent the juvenile justice system. Further, it seems that a 9 year old is less culpable (e.g., has less capacity to commit a crime) than a 14 year old and should therefore be more deserving of a decline hearing. State v. Vela, 100 Wash.2d 636, 641, 673 P.2d 185 (1983) (explaining that statutes should receive a sensible construction to effect the legislative intent and, if possible, to avoid unjust and absurd consequences); see also Q.D., 102 Wash.2d at 22-23, 685 P.2d 557. However, this result can be avoided if the 16 year old can prove prosecutorial delay. Because defendants have the option of avoiding the unjust result by proving prosecutorial delay, our reading does not produce an absurd result. In conclusion, we construe the age element in RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v) to refer to age at the time of the proceedings. Previous case law, the clear language of the statute, and legislative intent provide strong grounds for this interpretation. In light of this conclusion, we find Salavea fails to prove loss of juvenile court jurisdiction. Salavea was 16 at the earliest charging and trial date. Based on his age and the nature of the crime, RCW 13.04.030(1)(e)(v)(C) would have mandated that Salavea be tried in adult court. Therefore, any subsequent delay in charging did not cause Salavea to lose juvenile court jurisdiction because he was never entitled to juvenile court jurisdiction.