Court Opinion

ID: 9553401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:28:58.055376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:31:02.322826
License: Public Domain

TONGUE, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the position of the majority to the effect that it is “unreasonable” to permit a defendant, by pleading guilty to a lesser charge, to avoid prosecution on a more serious charge. I cannot agree with the majority, however, in its “interpretation” of OES 131.505 and 131.515 in such manner as to avoid that result.
To me, the terms of this statute, as enacted by the legislature in 1973, are clear and unambiguous and require, the contrary result for the reasons stated by the dissenting opinion by McAllister, J. In such a case I do not believe that this court, by the process of statutory “interpretation,” may properly avoid such a result on the ground that it is “unreasonable.”
In my view, when the legislature enacts a statute in clear and unambiguous language, as in this case, such language should be given effect by this court even though the result is one which the legislature did not intend. If the legislature did not intend such a result in this case, the legislature may correct the matter in its current session.
*763In my opinion, for this court to attempt to correct the problem in this case on the ground that such a result is “unreasonable” is an invitation to the courts of this state to interpret all statutes in such a manner as to reach results deemed by courts to be “reasonable,” so as to avoid results deemed by the courts to be “unreasonable,” despite clear and unambiguous terms of a statute, as in this case. See Johnson v. Star Machinery Co., 270 Or 694, 530 P2d 53 (1974), and dissenting opinion.
For these reasons I dissent.