Court Opinion

ID: 9751466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:28:55.23699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:25:29.395990
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice CASTILLE,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. Notably, the General Assembly has recently amended the statute at issue and addressed the obvious gap in its treatment of the registration requirement as applied to homeless offenders. The Majority’s analysis of the prior statute, impressively intricate and lawyerly though it certainly is, ultimately proves too much. This is a penal statute that threatens a loss of freedom for those who would run afoul of it.1 As such, this Court is obliged to strictly construe it in favor of the defendant. Unlike the amended statute, this prior version does not, by its plain terms, address the situation of the homeless offender, who does not, and cannot, register a “residence” that would fit within the statutory definition of that term. I would not ignore the rule of lenity, which derives from the requirement of strict construction of criminal statutes, in pursuit of a legislative purpose that, however salutary and sensible, is not clearly and unambiguously conveyed in the written terms of the statute before us.
Drafting legislation is no easy task. Even the most carefully drafted provisions may fail to anticipate every possible scenario under which the statute may be applied. The consequences of statutory interpretation can affect citizens in a myriad of ways, including: their professions and business *45relationships, their property, their personal wealth, their freedom of movement, and most seriously, their very freedom itself. In the Statutory Construction Act, the General Assembly has recognized that there are some classes of statutory provisions whose effect upon the citizenry is of sufficient moment that ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the citizenry, i.e., those provisions must be strictly construed. First among the classes so designated for strict construction are penal provisions. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1928(b)(1).
The requirement of strict construction of penal provisions derives from the common law. In one form or another, the concept has been part of our jurisprudence as far back as the early national era. See Commonwealth v. Messinger, 1 Binn. 273 (Pa.1808) (Yeates, J., concurring) (“I fully assent to the established principle, that penal laws are to be construed strictly, and that they are not to be carried beyond their letter.... It is sufficient to state that our books teem with authorities, shewing that penal statutes shall not be construed beyond this strict letter.”). The theory is as obvious as it is salutary, and is rooted in notions of personal liberty and due process, i.e., the requirement of fair notice when liberty is at risk. The modern iteration of the rule has been described by the U.S. Supreme Court as being premised upon two policies:
First, “a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so [far] as possible the line should be clear.” McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 341, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931) (Holmes, J.). Second, because of the seriousness of criminal penalties, and because criminal punishment usually represents the moral condemnation of the community, legislatures and not courts should define criminal activity.
United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 348, 92 S.Ct. 515, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971) (footnote and one citation omitted). The High Court further explicated the underlying principle in its unanimous decision in United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997), noting that, “the *46touchstone is whether the statute, either standing alone or as construed, made it reasonably clear at the relevant time that the defendant’s conduct was criminal.” Id. at 264 & n. 1, 267, 117 S.Ct. 1219. The Court further explained that:
There are three related manifestations of the fair warning requirement. First, the vagueness doctrine bars enforcement of “a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.” Second, as a sort of “junior version of the vagueness doctrine,” the canon of strict construction of criminal statutes, or rule of lenity, ensures fair warning by so resolving ambiguity in a criminal statute as to apply it only to conduct clearly covered. Third, although clarity at the requisite level may be supplied by judicial gloss on an otherwise uncertain statute, due process bars courts from applying a novel construction of a criminal statute to conduct that neither the statute nor any prior judicial decision has fairly disclosed to be within its scope.
Id. at 266, 117 S.Ct. 1219 (citations omitted). Accord Commonwealth v. Heinbaugh, 467 Pa. 1, 354 A.2d 244, 246 (1976); Commonwealth v. Glover, 397 Pa. 543, 156 A.2d 114, 116 (1959) (quoting Commonwealth v. Exler, 243 Pa. 155, 89 A. 968, 971 (1914) for proposition that “when a criminal statute calls for construction, it is not the construction that is supported by the greater reason that is to prevail but that one which, if reasonable, operates in favor of life and liberty.”); cf. United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415, 436-37, 129 S.Ct. 1079, 172 L.Ed.2d 816 (2009) (Roberts, C.J., joined by Scalia, J., dissenting) (“If the rule of lenity means anything, it is that an individual should not go to jail for failing to conduct a 50-state survey or comb through obscure legislative history. Ten years in jail is too much to hinge on the will-o’-the-wisp of statutory meaning pursued by the majority.”).
There are two further concerns of note in construing the criminal consequences of the registration requirement here. First is the recognition that the rule of lenity itself has limits:
*47The need for strict construction does not require that the words of a penal statute be given their narrowest possible meaning or that legislative intent be disregarded, nor does it override the more general principle that the words of a statute must be construed according to their common and approved usage. It does mean, however, that where ambiguity exists in the language of a penal statute, such language should be interpreted in the light most favorable to the accused. More specifically, where doubt exists concerning the proper scope of a penal statute, it is the accused who should receive the benefit of such doubt. Significantly, a court may not achieve an acceptable construction of a penal statute by reading into the statute terms that broaden its scope.
Commonwealth v. Booth, 564 Pa. 228, 766 A.2d 843, 846 (2001) (citations and footnote omitted). Second is the recognition that the penal provision at issue did not have a common law analogue. This point of distinction is significant because this Court has recognized that: “Statutes which embody well-settled common law norms stand on a footing somewhat different than statutes which attempt to circumscribe conduct newly proscribed. Because the former group merely reiterate customary normative standards, the prohibitory language need not be drawn with the precision that a newly-conceived interdiction might require.” Heinbaugh, 354 A.2d at 247 (citation omitted).
In my view, the registration provision at issue here, prior to its recent amendment, reflects at best a latent ambiguity concerning what an offender, such as appellee here, who is both subject to the registration requirements of Megan’s Law and homeless, can do to avoid criminal sanction.2 At the time *48of appellee’s offense, the relevant statutory provision defined “residence” for purposes of sexual offender registration as follows: “A location where an individual resides or is domiciled or intends to be domiciled for 30 consecutive days or more during a calendar year.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9792. Megan’s Law directs that upon release from incarceration, offenders are to provide state police with “all current or intended residences”; offenders are thereafter to inform state police of any “change of residence or establishment of an additional residence or residences” within forty-eight hours. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9795.2(a)(1). According to the Majority, when the location appellee initially registered as his intended residence, 1708 Market Street in Harrisburg, did not work out, appellee’s obligation to notify police of a change in his “residence” was triggered; and, the fact that appellee thereafter became homeless did not negate his registration obligations. Nor did the fact that, due to appellee’s ensuing homelessness, he never met the thirty day “consecutive domicile” requirement of “residence” or the forty-eight hour notification period for a change of residence.
The potential exposure to criminal sanction in this statutory construct turns upon the word “residence,” which is specifically defined in a way that includes a temporal limitation of thirty days. The Majority reasons that the inclusion of “intended residences” in the statutory scheme indicates legislative anticipation that registrants’ residences might not be fixed, and that this potentiality would not excuse a registrant’s noncompliance. The Majority concludes: “There is no exception for homeless offenders, and the Superior Court was incorrect in reading such an exception into the statute,” the purpose of which is to ensure that communities where offenders may live are notified of and protected from the possibility of future predation. Majority Op. at 43, 40 A.3d at 1208.
The Majority’s intricate unraveling of the statute, in pursuit of an effectuation of the purpose behind the provision, may make perfect sense to lawyers, but that is not the test when construing a provision that would deprive a person of his or her liberty. The statute, as drafted, simply does not by its *49terms account for homeless or transient offenders. The definition at Section 9792 needs no additional construction if applied to a registrant fortunate enough to secure a physical place to live upon release: “A location where an individual resides or is domiciled or intends to be domiciled for 30 consecutive days or more during a calendar year.” Although thirty days of predictable and reliable living arrangements does not seem like a difficult prospect, the reality is that in this day and age, many persons lack even that little security. And, indeed, the consequences of criminal prosecution no doubt make convicted offenders less likely able than law abiding citizens to secure reliable or stable living arrangements. So it was here, as the evidence shows that appellee slept in various places on the streets of Harrisburg, evidently somewhere different on many nights, but kept a locker and received mail at a soup kitchen. Offenders such as appellee, by definition, have no “residence” as that term is defined in the statute. Thus, as applied to a homeless registrant who is the “common person” to whom the statute applies, residence is, at best, ambiguous. As such, the governing definition of residence 'is also, at best, silent on the nature of the obligation of such persons. To find a basis to punish offenders who lack a statutory residence to report, one must go behind the plain language. In such circumstances, the mandate of strict construction/lenity, which favors liberty, must apply; and, in my view, that principle dictates the outcome here. For certain, a park bench does not a residence make.
Furthermore, one need not look far for an unambiguous manner in which to address the circumstance of a transient or homeless offender who is subject to Megan’s Law registration requirements. As the Majority notes, the General Assembly has revised the registration provisions and has explicitly addressed the unique circumstance of homeless offenders. The statutory definition of “residence” in the amended version of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9792, which became effective on February 21, 2012, now reads:
With respect to an individual required to register under this subchapter, any of the following:
*50(1) A location where an individual resides or is domiciled or intends to be domiciled for 30 consecutive days or more during a calendar year.
(2) In the case of an individual who fails to establish a residence as set forth in paragraph (1), a temporary habitat or other temporary place of abode or dwelling, including, but not limited to, a homeless shelter or park, where the individual is lodged.
This revision makes clear the obligation of homeless offenders; the contrast to the prior definition, silent or ambiguous at best, is telling.
Because I respectfully disagree with the Majority’s statutory construction, which ignores the rule of lenity, I dissent.
Justice BAER joins the opinion.

. Although this Court has held that the registration requirements of Megan’s Law are not in and of themselves punitive, Commonwealth v. Lee, 594 Pa. 266, 935 A.2d 865, 880 (2007), appellee herein was arrested and charged under the Crimes Code with, inter alia, "Failure to comply with registration of sexual offenders requirements,” 18 Pa.C.S. § 4915, which is subject to felony grading and sentencing, and thus, clearly is penal in nature.

. This Court has described a "latent ambiguity” as arising when a statute that may seem clear on its face becomes unclear or develops conflicting viable meanings upon application in certain contexts or situations. When a latent ambiguity is presented, courts may rely upon canons of construction no less than in the instance of a patent ambiguity. Malt Beverages Distributors Ass’n v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 601 Pa. 449, 974 A.2d 1144, 1153 (2009); Commonwealth v. McCoy, 599 Pa. 599, 962 A.2d 1160, 1167 (2009); Steuart v. McChesney, 498 Pa. 45, 444 A.2d 659, 663 (1982).