Court Opinion

ID: 9788484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:55:07.063253+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:58.132490
License: Public Domain

FRANCHINI, Justice, (Dissenting) {27} This is a case of statutory interpretation and the statute should be interpreted by the Court as the legislature understood it at the time it was passed. Doe v. State ex rel. Governor’s Organized Crime Prevention Commission, 114 N.M. 78, 80, 835 P.2d 76, 78 (1992). {28} In 1973, the legislature passed the predecessor statute to Section 30-6-1 defining child abuse and neglect. This version is identical to the current statute and differs only in the penalty provision which was increased in 1989. In 1978, five years after the child abuse statute, the legislature enacted the current reckless driving statute. From the plain meaning of the language, the conduct addressed by the two statutes is strikingly similar. The child abuse statute, as applied to Guilez, addressed conduct of “knowingly, intentionally, or negligently, and without justifiable cause, causing or permitting a child to be ... placed in a situation that may endanger the child’s life or health.” See § 30-6-1(0(1) (emphasis added). The reckless driving statute referred to the driving of any vehicle “carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others and without due caution ... and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property.” See § 66-8-113(A) (emphasis added). {29} Thus, both statutes refer to conduct endangering a person. Further, the Legislature did not choose to exclude children from the definition of persons in the reckless driving statute. That would have clarified the two. Since this was not done, the resulting overlap alone makes the Legislature’s intent ambiguous. The general/specific rule of statutory interpretation applies when the statutory intent is ambiguous. See State v. Trujillo, 1999-NMCA-003, ¶ 15, 126 N.M. 603, 973 P.2d 855. {30} As a general principle of statutory interpretation, a comprehensive statutory scheme passed subsequent to a statute that addresses the same area will supersede the prior statute. Cf. State v. Arellano, 1997-NMCA-074, ¶ 6, 123 N.M. 589, 943 P.2d 1042. That is the case here. The legislature passed the child abuse statute in 1973. In 1978, the Legislature passed the Motor Vehicle Code, including the reckless driving statute that addressed the same “endangering” conduct. From the corresponding language of the two statutes it is reasonable to infer the Legislature’s intent to have the reckless driving statute preempt the child abuse statute when the “abuse” in question is based solely on driving a vehicle. {31} This Court has held that the legislature has preempted the field in two instances, Cleve, 1999-NMSC-017, ¶36, 127 N.M. 240, 980 P.2d 23, and Yarborough, 1996-NMSC-068, ¶ 29, 122 N.M. 596, 930 P.2d 131. In Cleve, we held: “Like the comprehensive Motor Vehicle Code addressed in Yarborough, ... we believe the comprehensive nature of the game and fish laws with respect to hunting activity demonstrates a legislative intent to preempt application of Section 30-18-1 to the hunting of game animals.” {32} In Yarborough, we held: “We agree with amici that the history of this statute leads to the conclusion that the legislature intended to preempt involuntary manslaughter when the predicate offense is a misdemeanor contained within the Motor Vehicle Code.” {33} The majority opinion does not overrule either Yarborough or Cleve. Therefore they are controlling here and, since they are, the end result in the majority opinion cannot be reached. {34} In this case, we see the same situation as in Yarborough. Child abuse does not require the use of a vehicle but when the predicate offense is a misdemeanor contained within the Motor Vehicle Code (reckless driving) the Motor Vehicle Code must preempt the charge of child abuse. I see no difference in the preemption rule simply because the felony here is child abuse rather than involuntary manslaughter. That, in my view, is a distinction without a real difference. {35} In my opinion, the Court of Appeals was correct in applying the general/specific rule of statutory interpretation in this matter. {36} For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.