Court Opinion

ID: 9749751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 17:02:06.897337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:57.432838
License: Public Domain

DANIEL E. SCOTT, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I concur. We are forced to construe § 566.083 because two of its subsections are not otherwise reconcilable. Given this internal ambiguity, we have considered the whole statute in light of the plain legislative intent, and have interpreted it accordingly.
That said, our legislature might consider other states’ drafting approaches on this issue, and whether they may reduce any risk of undesirable statutory ambiguity. See, e.g., Ga.Code Ann. § 16-12-100.2 (criminalizing internet solicitation, etc., of “a child or another person believed by such person to be a child”); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 847.0135 (similar when directed toward “a child or with another person believed by *458the person to be a child”); N.D. Cent.Code § 12.1-20-05.1 (similar when target is one whom “the adult believes to be a minor”).