Opinion ID: 1447803
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Sources of Legislative Intent

Text: Even though the most natural reading of the definition of a dangerous crime against children indicates that it refers to crimes that target or focus upon children, it can certainly be argued that the language is not so plain that it admits of no other interpretation. It is appropriate, therefore, to consult other sources of legislative intent. Such sources include the statute's context, subject matter, historical background, consequences, spirit, purpose, and policy. Korzep, 165 Ariz. at 493, 799 P.2d at 834. The legislative history indicates quite clearly that the enactment of § 13-604.01 was calculated to reach criminals who prey specifically upon children. The discussion before the House Judiciary Committee focused upon child sexual molestation, kidnapping, and child abuse. See generally S.B. 1021, Sexual Offenses; Child Victims: Minutes of Meeting before the Arizona House Committee on Judiciary, 37th Leg., 1st Sess. (Feb. 18, 1985). Of particular concern was the perceived recidivist nature of the people who commit these crimes. We conclude, as we have before, [4] that the legislature, in enacting § 13-604.01, was attempting to respond effectively to those predators who pose a direct and continuing threat to the children of Arizona. The lengthy periods of incarceration are intended to punish and deter those persons, and simultaneously keep them off the streets and away from children for a long time. The special penalties, ante, at 132-133, are calculated to deal with persons peculiarly dangerous to children. The spirit and purpose of § 13-604.01 are not well served by applying it to people like Williams who do not prey upon helpless children but who fortuitously injure children by their unfocused conduct. The state points out that punishment can vary according to the severity of the consequences flowing from an individual's conduct as well as from the culpability of that conduct, and the legislature could consider harming a child, even fortuitously, to be more serious than harming an adult. That is certainly true. And the legislature has done that here by converting a class 3 felony to a class 2 felony whenever the victim is under age fifteen. But the question before us is whether, in addition to that enhancement, the legislature intended the age of the victim to be sufficient to invoke § 13-604.01. We note that the legislature has elsewhere created severe penalties based solely on the age of the victim. Some of the offenses listed in § 13-604.01(K) are crimes only because the proscribed conduct is perpetrated upon a minor. In addition, in defining some substantive offenses the legislature increased the degree of the felony  and consequently the range of punishment  where the victim is under the age of fifteen. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 13-1402(B) (increasing indecent exposure offense from class one misdemeanor to class six felony where victim is under the age of fifteen); A.R.S. § 13-1403(C) (increasing public indecency offense from a class one misdemeanor to a class five felony when victim is a minor); A.R.S. § 13-1204(A)(4) (assault is aggravated if committed upon a child no more than fifteen years old, making the offense a class six felony rather than a misdemeanor). Given these other provisions that increase the punishment available based solely on the age of the victim, and given that the specific provisions of the dangerous crimes against children statute are so clearly aimed at prevention and deterrence, we cannot conclude that the legislature intended the consequences of § 13-604.01 to flow merely from the victim's age. Applying the statute in that way would trivialize its purpose by treating alike the repetitive child rapist and the reckless, but unfocused, driver. We therefore reject the state's contention that committing an offense against a child within the meaning of § 13-604.01 is the same as committing an offense, the victim of which happens to be a child. We also reject Williams' argument that § 13-604.01 applies only to those crimes that are committed intentionally or knowingly and does not apply where the mental state for the offense is mere recklessness. This is neither consistent with the statutory language, nor the intent to punish severely those who prey upon children as opposed to those whose actions only fortuitously affect a child. Williams was convicted of aggravated assault for recklessly causing physical injury. Had he, instead, intentionally used his car to cause physical injury, the presence of the minor victim might still have been fortuitous.