Court Opinion

ID: 9514008
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:43:13.674688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:08.587368
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[¶ 15] I concur with that part of the Majority Opinion concluding that Nas-trom’s reliance on Fuson v. Schaible, 494 N.W.2d 593 (N.D.1992), and Ruscheinsky v. Ulrich, 2000 ND 133, ¶ 11, 612 N.W.2d 283, is misplaced, and that the Michigan decision of People v. Monaco, 474 Mich. 48, 710 N.W.2d 46 (2006), is unhelpful to our analysis. However, I respectfully dissent from those portions of the Majority Opinion that expansively- — -and in my opinion, improperly — apply the “the plain language” of our statutes.
[¶ 16] Our point of beginning is that this case is not about whether Nastrom has a legal obligation to support his child — that issue has been conclusively resolved and delinquent amounts have been reduced to judgment as a matter of law. See N.D.C.C. § 14-08.1-05(1)(a). Rather, the narrow question here is whether the statute of limitations permits a criminal action against Nastrom when past-due support, and not the support itself, is owed during the three years preceding the criminal charge.
[¶ 17] The applicable criminal law provides:
*437“A person is guilty of an offense if the person willfully fails to pay child support in an amount ordered by a court or other governmental agency having authority to issue the orders.
[[Image here]]
For purposes of this section, ‘child support’ has the meaning provided in section 14-09-09.10.”
N.D.C.C. § 12.1-37-01(1) and (5).
[¶ 18] The specified section defining “child support” provides:
“ ‘Child support’ means payments for the support of children, including payments for health insurance coverage or other medical support, and combined payments for the support of children and spouses or former spouses, however denominated, if the payment is required by the order of a court or other governmental agency having authority to issue such orders.”
N.D.C.C. § 14-09-09.10(3).
[¶ 19] This Court’s precedents, rules of statutory interpretation mandated by the Legislature, and notions of due process instruct that criminal laws are interpreted narrowly and that statutes of limitation are applied in favor of the accused. See State v. Plentychief, 464 N.W.2d 373, 375 (N.D.1990) (citing City of Bismarck v. Sholy, 430 N.W.2d 337, 338 (N.D.1988) (“It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that criminal statutes are strictly construed in favor of the defendant and against the government.”)); State v. Hersch, 445 N.W.2d 626, 631 (N.D.1989) (“We are also guided by the principle that statutes of limitation are to be construed liberally in favor of the accused and against the prosecution.”) (citation omitted).
[¶20] Here, the State admits that no child support was due within three years of prosecution and that this criminal proceeding is based solely on Nastrom’s failure to pay past-due amounts. The applicable penal statute incorporates the definition of “child support” found in N.D.C.C. § 14-09-09.10. That definition of “child support” chosen by the Legislature could have included “past-due support,” the definition for which also is found in section 14-09-09.10. But the Legislature did not include “past-due support” in the penal statute. Instead, the Majority has done what the Legislature did not; it imported the definition of “past-due support” into the definition of “child support” for purposes of a prosecution under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-37-01. See Majority Opinion at ¶ 9. Doing so, the Majority swims against the current of our precedent and the rules of statutory interpretation. Doing so, the Majority runs afoul of the Century Code’s admonishment that “[w]hen the wording of a statute is clear and free of all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” N.D.C.C. § 1-02-05. I therefore respectfully dissent from that portion of the Majority’s analysis that effectively amends section 12.1-37-01(1), N.D.C.C., and from the result reached in this case.
[¶ 21] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., concurs.