Court Opinion

ID: 9804572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:58:30.162803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:16:27.358688
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 38] I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion although I am not entirely convinced by the majority’s statutory analysis. However, I agree the statutes are ambiguous and, in this instance, I would include in the majority’s analysis another rule of statutory construction, i.e., the rule of lenity defined by Black’s Law Dictionary 1332 (7th ed.1999) as “[t]he judicial doctrine holding that a court, in construing an ambiguous criminal statute that sets out multiple or inconsistent punishments, should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient punishment.” See also State v. Drader, 432 N.W.2d 553, 555 (N.D.1988) (holding conditions of probation are to be strictly construed in favor of the offender). Applying the rule of lenity with the other rules of statutory construction, I conclude the trial court does have discretion to suspend a portion of Murphy’s sentence.