Court Opinion

ID: 9538041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:28:51.942918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:22.669033
License: Public Domain

Steffen, J.,
with whom Mowbray, J., agrees,
dissenting:
Respectfully, I dissent.
I am unable to join in the majority opinion because of what I perceive to be a compellingly clear statute that mandates a contrary result.
NRS 62.360(4) specifically addresses the extent to which a minor’s juvenile court records may be utilized in civil actions. By its precise terms, only the juvenile’s name may be released and used in the action. Long ago, we declared as an elementary principle of statutory construction that if the language of a statute “is susceptible of but one natural, honest construction, that alone can be given.” State v. California Mining Co., 13 Nev. 203, 217 (1878). Moreover, in State ex rel. Copeland v. Woodbury, 17 Nev. 337, 343, 30 Pac. 1006, 1008 (1883), we said that “[w]here a statute is clear, plain and unambiguous, we have repeatedly declared that there is no room for construction and the law must be followed regardless of results.” We have also expressly recognized that it is not the business of the court to construe clear, unambiguous statutes that are impractical or unworkable, State ex rel. Caughlin v. Alt, 22 Nev. 203, 212, 37 Pac. 486, 488 (1894), or questionably just or equitable, In re Walter’s Estate, 60 Nev. 172, 186, 104 P.2d 968, 974 (1940).
Given the clear limitations set forth in NRS 62.360(4), I am unpersuaded by the majority’s conclusion that NRS 62.360(2) also applies to civil actions. By adopting such a position, the majority have effectively nullified NRS 62.360(4). The broad language of NRS 62.360(2), if applied to paragraph 4, would render the specific restrictive provisions of the latter paragraph redundant and without purpose. Obviously, if a civil litigant is accorded unlimited access and use of a juvenile file under paragraph 2, a court order authorizing the release and use of a child’s name only, under paragraph 4, would be senseless. I therefore conclude that the rule of statutory construction cited by the majority, requiring this court to read a statute as a whole and, where possible, give meaning to all of its parts, Nevada Tax Comm’n v. Bernhard, 100 Nev. 348, 683 P.2d 21 (1984), has been violated by the majority’s nullification of paragraph 4.
*735Moreover, I am unable to find within paragraph 4 a basis for the majority’s conclusion that the paragraph “applies only to civil actions arising out of conduct that led to the exercise of jurisdiction by the juvenile court.” Clearly, the term “conduct” within paragraph 4 refers to the basis for the civil action, not the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. Although, as a practical matter, the conduct constituting the basis for the civil action and the juvenile court jurisdiction may most often be identical, it seems clear from the statute that it need not be the same conduct. I must therefore conclude that paragraph 4 is applicable in the instant case despite the fact that juvenile proceedings were never instituted against Chris over the death of Tony Hernandez.
In my opinion, petitioners’ contention that paragraph 2 refers only to social workers, law enforcement agencies and other agencies and individuals concerned with a juvenile’s rehabilitation and treatment within the juvenile or criminal justice system has merit. By construing the paragraph’s reference to “persons having a legitimate interest” to persons in the aforementioned categories, both paragraphs 2 and 4 would retain meaningful purpose in accordance with the legislative intent to severely restrict access to official information concerning a minor’s involvement in the juvenile justice system.
Because it is not this court’s legitimate prerogative to alter the thrust of a clearly worded statute, I have refrained from discussing my views concerning the wisdom of paragraph 4.1 nevertheless have no difficulty recognizing a reasonable social purpose within the narrow limitations of the language selected by the legislature in its enactment of paragraph 4.
For reasons noted above, I would have granted petitioners’ request for relief.