Court Opinion

ID: 9655919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:25:27.887952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:23.359178
License: Public Domain

White, C. J.,
dissenting.
The constitutional issue raised in this case arises from an alleged ambiguity in the second sentence of section 60-430.02, R. S. Supp., 1965. Although interpretation in its general sense is necessary, the standard of guilt is reasonably ascertainable. Nothing in the statutory language leaves the outcome of a trial to the moral temper of an unguided jury. An essential element of the crime is culpable intent, and the statute has given fair warning of the prescribed conduct. Constitutions do not demand of Legislatures a definiteness that obviates interpretation. I think there is no constitutional uncertainty involved here, and I therefore dissent.
In the interpretation of a statute, the court should ascertain the legislative intent and give effect to it if it *298is a lawful one. Wilson v. Marsh, 162 Neb. 237, 75 N. W. 2d 723. To construe a statute, a court must look to the object to be accomplished, the evils and mischief sought to be remedied, or purpose to be subserved, and place on the statute a reasonable or liberal construction which will best effect its purpose, rather than one which will defeat it. Roy v. Bladen School Dist., 165 Neb. 170, 84 N. W. 2d 119; Rebman v. School Dist. No. 1, 178 Neb. 313, 133 N. W. 2d 384.
In the case before us, the intent of the Legislature is plainly manifested in the first sentence of the act, to wit: “It shall be unlawful for any person operating any motor vehicle to flee in such vehicle in an effort to avoid arrest for violating any law of this state.” The second sentence: “Operation of such motor vehicle in an otherwise lawful manner shall not constitute fleeing to avoid arrest” was intended merely to define that which was not an offense under the statute. It in no way changes the definitions of the crime charged in the first sentence and is needless surplusage.
The foregoing is not only apparent from the act itself, but is supported by the legislative intent as expressed in the report of the Legislative Judiciary Committee wherein it is said: “The statute presently makes fleeing to avoid arrest a crime only if done as an effort to' avoid arrest for operating a vehicle while the operator’s license has been suspended or revoked. This bill includes anyone fleeing to avoid arrest.”
It is not the court’s duty, nor is it within its province, to read a meaning into a statute that is not warranted by the legislative language. Wessel v. City of Lincoln, 145 Neb. 357, 16 N. W. 2d 476. If a statute is unambiguous, courts will not by interpretation or construction usurp the function of a lawmaking body and give it a •meaning not intended or expressed by the Legislature. Fugate v. Ronin, 167 Neb. 70, 91 N. W. 2d 240. Rules of interpretation are resorted to for purpose of resolving an ambiguity in a statute, not of creating it. State ex rel. *299Finigan v. Norfolk Live Stock Sales Co., Inc., 178 Neb. 87, 132 N. W. 2d 302. A cardinal rule of statutory construction is that effect must be given, if possible, to the whole statute and every part thereof, and it is the duty of the court, so far as practicable, to reconcile the different provisions so as to make them consistent, harmonious, •and sensible. An interpretation which gives effect to a statute will be chosen over one which defeats it, and an interpretation which gives effect to the entire language will be selected against one which does not. Belgum v. City of Kimball, 163 Neb. 774, 81 N. W. 2d 205, 62 A. L. R. 2d 1295.
In the case before us, the crime is properly defined in its first sentence of the statute. The ambiguity, if any, is contained in the second sentence, a needless provision. It is not the province of this court to create an ambiguity by construction or inference for the purpose of holding the statute unconstitutional. The Constitution does not require the Legislature to anticipate that the court will by inference or speculation create an ambiguity when the intention of the Legislature is clearly evident.