Stat Reading
Professor Cover
Elsa
Question #1
Ambiguous terms: maliciously, weapon, awful, practicing, capital, child’s,
parent, caretaker, and own young children
Yes, Sec. 12.3456 (C) does allow a defense to be raised for Scrivener. The statutes
language is unclear. The first ambiguous term is ‘awful’. This appears to be
scrivener’s error. A scrivener’s error occurs when the drafter of the actual
legislation makes a mistake or typo in the language of the text. In this case it appears
that ‘awful’ should have been ‘lawful’. If it were lawful for a parent to discipline their
children then the next question would be whether a stepparent is a qualifying party
under the statute.
Before beginning this analysis; however, it must be noted that the word
‘capital’ within Sec. (C) is not correct. The Absurdity Doctrine would dictate that any
legislation producing an absurd result must not have been the intent of the
legislature. In this case it is absurd to think the legislature intended for parents to be
able to kill their children for miscreant behavior and that capital was to mean
corporal.
In interpretation statutory language there one can follow the spirit of the law
as a purposivist or the letter of the law as a textualist. Textualist primarily function
within the four corners of the statue and the plain meaning of the language; where
as purposivist look to what the legislature intended the law to accomplish or the
mischief to be corrected. In this case it appears that a textual interpretation would
not favor Scrivener but a purposivist interpretation could possibly raise defense.
Assuming the absurd result was not intended then the next question is
whether Scrivener qualifies as a parent. Under the plain meaning rule he does not,
but looking retrospectively at the legislative history it appears the enacting
legislature intended to include ‘caretaker’ as a qualifying person for the purpose for
the statue. If legislative history and intent are used then, a defense is possible. The
legislative history is not conclusive on this point. The excerpt from the senate
reports states their ‘ own young children’ relative to the terms parents or
caretakers. “Own’ and ‘young are both ambiguous terms. In order for a caretaker to
have their charge be considered their ’own’ some legal mechanism may need to be
in place such as adoption or an express consent by the actual parent of the child or
the state. Furthermore, the stepdaughter is seventeen and it is likely that she would
not meet the definition of ‘young’ as described in the excerpt. It is generally not
considered socially acceptable to administer corporal punishment to a seventeen
year old. Finally, there is ambiguity whether a onetime occurrence would meet the
definition of practicing within the statute. If there had not been a longstanding use
of corporal punishment as a method of discipline then it may not.
Stat Reading
Professor Cover
Elsa
Question #2
Yes, the statute does allow Mr. Scrivener a defense other than that found in Sec.
12.3456 (C). The statute itself is ambiguous in Sec (A). First, the word maliciously
may not apply to the action of throwing the phone. Malicious is defined as
“substantially certain to cause injury” as per Black’s. It is arguable that Scrivener
was not substantially certain that he would hit her with the phone and cause the
harm. Conversely, an alternative definition of malicious is “without just cause or
excuse.” Although it is arguable that the stepdaughter’s behavior may have
reasonably justified Scrivener’s action it is doubtful a court would accept that
position. Further Sec. (A) does not define weapon. Is a phone a weapon? Under the
plain meaning rule it would not seam a phone would qualify. Without additional
legislative definition of this term a defense could be made that Scrivener did not use
a weapon in creating the harm.