Court Opinion

ID: 9765206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:56:12.103476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:02.208614
License: Public Domain

PRICE, Judge,
dissenting.
In finding that the plain and ordinary meaning of section 552.020.10(6), RSMo 1994, is unambiguous and requires that the criminal charges against Kenneth Baumruk be dismissed,1 the majority ignores the express language of the statute, adds words to the *448statute that are not there, and reaches an absurd result that is contrary to the legislative intent of the statute. I dissent.
The principal failing of the majority opinion is that it does not give effect to the actual words used in section 552.020.10(6). The statute provides that charges shall be dismissed only when:
[T]he court makes its findings on whether the accused is mentally ill and should be committed or whether he is incapacitated and should have a guardian appointed. (Emphasis added.)
The only express terms in the statute that require dismissal of charges are that the accused is “committed” or has “a guardian appointed”. No express language in the statute even addresses what should happen if the accused is not committed or a guardian is not appointed, let alone mandates dismissal of criminal charges.
The majority infers that charges must be dropped from words that are not included in the statute. They argue that the word “whether” encompasses both the positive and the negative resolution of the two conditions and that the words “or not” must be inserted, by interpretation, into the statute. The majority cites without quotation Bryan A. Garner, A Dictionary of Modem Legal Usage 575 (Oxford University Press 1987) for support.
Gamer, however, addresses the question at hand in only the most superficial way.2 In subpart (C) of his definition of the word “whether” he merely notes that:
Whether or not. The or not is usually superfluous. E.g., “Whether or not [read whether ] the special litigation committee determines that the derivative suit should have been brought remains to be seen.”
Gamer does not state that the words “or not” must always be assumed; he does not provide a comprehensive explanation for all uses of “whether”; and he gives, for example, a relatively simple sentence structure that is unlike the language at issue. Specifically, Gamer does not address the use of the word “whether” with two disjunctive clauses, as here:
When such proceedings are filed, the criminal charges shall be dismissed when the court makes its finding on whether the accused is mentally ill and should be committed or whether he is incapacitated and should have a guardian appointed.
The Oxford English Dictionary, however, discusses the use of the word “whether” extensively. In discussing the use of the word “whether” precisely as used in section 552.020.10(6), it states:
[When (Introducing a disjunctive clause (usually with correlative or) having a qualifying or conditional force, and standing in adverbial relation to the main sentence ... whether., or = [means] whichever of the alternative possibilities or suppositions be the case; in either of the cases mentioned; if on the one hand., and likewise on the other hand.
The Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. XII, VZ (Clarendon Press 1961).
Likewise, it is instructive to refer to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 2603. In its first of four definitions of the word “whether”, it states “which one of the two”. Webster’s offers an entirely separate definition for the term “whether or no also whether or not” that is stated as “in any case”. When applied to the words actually used in the statute, this distinction is crucial. The legislature used only the word “whether” indicating a choice between the two stated conditions, not the words “whether or not” which would have indicated in any case.
An example of this distinction in the use of the word “whether” is found in the following sentence: ‘We will arrive in St. Louis in two hours whether going by car or whether going by train.” In this context, the use of the word “whether” with the correlative “or” means that if either of the alternatives occurs, we will arrive in St. Louis in two hours. However, the sentence does not mean that if we sit still, walk, or ride a horse, we will arrive in St. Louis in two hours, although *449that is the “plain and ordinary meaning” that the majority would impose.
A further indication of the error in the majority’s interpretation of this sentence is that it renders every word after “finding” surplusage.
When such proceedings are filed, the criminal charges shall be dismissed when the court makes its finding on whether the accused is mentally ill and should be committed or whether he is incapacitated and should have a guardian appointed. (Emphasis supplied.)
If the use of the words “finding on” in conjunction with the word “whether [or not]” means that the charges are to be dropped regardless of the findings reached, stating those findings would be unnecessary. The sentence immediately preceding the sentence at issue makes clear what proceedings and what findings are involved.
The probate division of the circuit court shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the accused upon the filing of a proper pleading to determine if the accused shall be involuntarily detained under chapter 632, RSMo, or to determine if the accused shall be declared incapacitated under chapter 475, RSMo, and approved for admission by the guardian under section 632.120 or 633.120, RSMo, to a mental health or retardation facility.
There could be no purpose in restating the subject of the findings unless it is to restrict the triggering of dismissal of the charges to the two conditions expressly stated. To render these words meaningless is contrary to our duty to harmonize all provisions of a statute so that “every word, clause, sentence and section thereof must be given some meaning.” Staley v. Missouri Director of Revenue, 623 S.W.2d 246, 250 (Mo. banc 1981).
While I believe the majority is simply wrong concerning the plain and ordinary meaning of section 552.020.10(6), at the very least the use of this complex sentence structure and the use of the word “whether” renders the provision ambiguous. Ambiguity is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th ed. (West Publishing 1990), as:
AMBIGUITY. Doubtfulness; doubleness of meaning. (Citations omitted.) This is not a high standard. For the majority to refuse even to acknowledge doubt concerning the proper reading of this statute belies a simplistic approach that fails to take into account the difficulty of statutory interpretation. See James E. Westbrook, A Comparison of the Interpretation of Statutes and Collective Bargaining Agreements: Grasping the Pivot of Too, 60 Mo. L. Rev. 283 (1995), and the inherent inability of humans, let alone legislatures, to express themselves with certain clarity in language. As stated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 37:
When the Almighty Himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, His meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the medium through which it is communicated.
One wonders what better knowledge the majority has regarding the use of a word to which the Oxford Dictionary devotes one and one-half pages and to which Webster’s Dictionary devotes four definitions and a separate fifth definition for the term the majority wishes to insert in its place that allows them to state, “There is no ambiguity.”
A recognition of ambiguity allows consideration of traditional rules of construction. Brownstein v. Rhomberg-Haglin & Assoc., 824 S.W.2d 13, 15 (Mo. banc 1992). One “compelling rule of construction requires the court to presume that the legislature did not intend to enact an absurd law and favors a construction that avoids unjust or unreasonable results.” Abrams v. Ohio Pacific Exp., 819 S.W.2d 338, 341 (Mo. banc 1991). The purpose of section 552.020 is to protect the rights of incompetent individuals who have been charged with crimes. The purpose of the statute was not to provide a legal loophole for an individual to argue in one proceeding that he is not competent, in another proceeding that he is competent, and then, without any exercise of prosecutorial, guard*450ian/institutional or judicial discretion, automatically to escape both trial and treatment. Such a result is absurd and unjust, especially when the evidence introduced at the guardianship proceeding was inconsistent with and provides cause to reexamine the earlier finding that the defendant was incompetent to proceed.3
Another crucial consideration is subsequent legislative action. The legislature has clarified, without question, its intention that individuals should not be allowed to commit horribly violent acts and then be allowed to walk free without trial or treatment to endanger the public again when it amended the sentence in question in 1997 to read:
When such proceedings are filed, the criminal charges shall be dismissed without prejudice if the court finds that the accused is mentally ill and should be committed or that he is incapacitated and should have a guardian appointed.
Had the legislature intended this statute to have produced the absurd result reached by the majority, it would have amended the statute differently.

. The majority refuses to address the serious issues that may preclude refiling of these charges, leaving open the possibility that Baum-ruk will walk free from his acts of May 5, 1992, without trial or treatment.

. In his introduction. Gamer openly states that "this dictionary lays no claim to comprehensiveness."

. In closing argument at that proceeding, Baum-ruk's attorney argued that:
Well, he's not a disabled person. Is anything more clear than that? Here is the definition of "disabled person.” It’s in Instruction No. 6. The term "disabled person” as used in these instructions means "one who is unable by reason of any physical or mental condition to receive and evaluate information or to communicate decisions to such an extent that the person lacks ability to manage his financial resources.”
[[Image here]]
He deserves that chance. He's already spent enough time in that hospital wasting away. He’s not an incapacitated person. This is a guy who knows what he wants to do. He’s got a set mind. He doesn’t want people in his way.
* * ⅜ ‡
He’s functioning at a level of 70, global assessment scale, minor everyday problems. That’s what the doctor said. Oh, but he’s in a structured environment. Well, so why don't we give him a chance and see what he can do outside. Is that so bad? What’s wrong with that? That’s what we’re asking you to do.