State v. Stegall

828 N.W.2d 526

2013 ND 49

STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.Alexis STEGALL, Defendant and Appellee.

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.Chelsea Hettich, Defendant and Appellee.

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellant

v.Kimberlie Nicole Lamon, Defendant and Appellee.

Nos. 20120362, 20120365, 20120386.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

April 4, 2013.

Nathan K. Madden (argued), Assistant State's Attorney, Williston, N.D., for plaintiff and appellant.

Adrianne L. Fernstrom (argued), N.D. Public Defenders' Office, Williston, N.D., for defendant and appellee Alexis Stegall.

Mark S. Douglas (appeared), N.D. Public Defenders' Office, Williston, N.D., for defendant and appellee Chelsea Hettich.

Robert W. Martin (appeared), N.D. Public Defenders' Office, Minot, N.D., for defendant and appellee Kimberlie Nicole Lamon.

MARING, Justice.

[¶ 1] The State appeals the trial courts' orders dismissing three separate criminal complaints of endangerment of a child against Alexis Stegall, Chelsea Hettich, and Kimberlie Lamon (“Defendants”). We hold that the trial courts properly dismissed the criminal complaints against the Defendants by concluding the charge of endangerment of a child under N.D.C.C. § 19–03.1–22.2 does not apply to acts committed by the mother against an unborn child. We affirm the trial courts' orders.

I

[¶ 2] This case arises out of three separate criminal cases and has been consolidated on appeal. For purposes of clarity and our analysis, we discuss the factual background of each case separately.

A

[¶ 3] On December 28, 2011, Stegall gave birth to A.S. The State alleges, following the birth, A.S. tested positive for methamphetamine. On December 29, 2011, the State charged Stegall with endangerment of a child. The trial court established a scheduling order requiring all motions to be filed on or by March 16, 2012. Prior to the deadline, Stegall absconded and her trial counsel withdrew as counsel. The record indicates that Stegall was apprehended on July 9, 2012, and the trial court subsequently appointed her new counsel.

[¶ 4] On August 16, 2012, prior to trial, Stegall moved to dismiss the complaint under N.D.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2). Stegall argued the State failed to allege in the complaint or affidavit of probable cause a crime under N.D.C.C. § 19–03.1–22.2. Stegall argued that an individual cannot be charged with endangerment of a child for prenatal ingestion of a controlled substance, as an unborn child is not a child under the statute. The State resisted the motion and argued that, after the child's birth, A.S. continued to be exposed to the controlled substance. The trial court dismissed the State's complaint, concluding “there [were] no allegations that [Stegall] knowingly or intentionally caused, or permitted her child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia following A.S.'s birth.”

B

[¶ 5] In April 2012, the State charged Hettich with two counts of endangerment of a child, after Hettich gave birth to twins who had methamphetamine present in their systems.

[¶ 6] At a preliminary hearing, Officer Ryan Zimmerman testified that a urinalysis first revealed that Hettich and the twin children had methamphetamine in their systems. A subsequent meconium, an infant's first stool, test was performed. John Doe I tested positive for methamphetamine, and John Doe II tested negative. Officer Zimmerman also testified, that after their birth but before testing, the children were not exposed to methamphetamine by Hettich or any other person. The exposure occurred prior to birth.

[¶ 7] Hettich moved to dismiss the complaint under N.D.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2). She argued the State failed to allege she committed any criminal act upon her child postpartum. The State argued that the child was “exposed” to methamphetamine postpartum and the mother was criminally liable. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding the State failed to prove in its information or affidavit of probable cause allegations supporting a charge of endangerment of a child under N.D.C.C. § 19–03.1–22.2.

C

[¶ 8] In July 2012, the State charged Lamon with one count of endangerment of a child. The State's affidavit of probable cause alleged that Lamon gave birth to John Doe and, immediately following his birth, he tested positive for methamphetamine.

[¶ 9] Lamon moved to dismiss the complaint. She argued the State failed to allege she committed an act of endangerment against her child. The State argued that the child was “exposed” to methamphetamine postpartum, and the mother was criminally liable. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding “there [were] no allegations that [Lamon] knowingly or intentionally caused, or permitted her child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia following John Doe's birth.”

II

[¶ 10] The State argues the trial court should not have entertained Stegall's motion to dismiss. The State contends Stegall unjustly benefitted from absconding and, under the fugitive-dismissal rule, her motion should have been denied.

[¶ 11] The fugitive-dismissal rule “allows courts to dismiss an appeal of a defendant who escapes during the pendency of his or her appeal.” State v. Bell, 2000 ND 58, ¶ 4, 608 N.W.2d 232. We are unable to find any case law that suggests this rule should be applied to a defendant who absconds during pre-trial or trial proceedings, and we decline to extend its application.

[¶ 12] A motion to dismiss a criminal information is governed by N.D.R.Crim.P. 12(b). State v. Perreault, 2002 ND 14, ¶ 7, 638 N.W.2d 541. The purpose of the motion is to test the sufficiency of the information. Id. Under N.D.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2), a motion to dismiss raising a “defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a trial of the general issue” may be raised before trial.

[¶ 13] Here, although the trial court issued its scheduling order requesting all motions be submitted by March 16, 2012, and Stegall moved to dismiss the information on August 16, 2012, challenging its sufficiency, we conclude it was within the trial court's discretion to extend its own deadlines before trial.

III

[¶ 14] The dispositive issue before this Court is whether the offense of endangerment of a child, N.D.C.C. § 19–03.1–22.2, applies when a pregnant woman ingests a controlled substance that continues to affect the child postpartum; specifically, the child tests positive for a controlled substance following birth. The offense of endangerment of a child under N.D.C.C. § 19–03.1–22.2(2) states: “a person who knowingly or intentionally causes or permits a child or vulnerable adult to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia ... is guilty of a class C felony.” The State conceded in oral argument that none of the Defendants committed any act exposing her child postpartum, but rather argued the prenatal act of each defendant continued to affect her child postpartum. The State argues that a child is still “exposed” to the controlled substance following birth, even though the initial ingestion by the pregnant woman occurred pre-birth.

[¶ 15] “The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal.” State v. Geiser, 2009 ND 36, ¶ 6, 763 N.W.2d 469. “When interpreting statutes, this Court has a duty to ascertain the Legislature's intent.” Id. at ¶ 8. “Words used in any statute are to be understood in their ordinary sense, unless a contrary intention plainly appears, but any words explained in this code are to be understood as thus explained.” N.D.C.C. § 1–02–02. “Technical words and phrases and such others as have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in law, or as are defined by statute, must be construed according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning or definition.” N.D.C.C. § 1–02–03. If a statute is clear and free from ambiguity, we may not disregard the letter of the law. N.D.C.C. § 1–02–05.

[¶ 16] Further, we “construe[ ] statutes to avoid absurd or illogical results.” Mertz v. City of Elgin, Grant Cnty., 2011 ND 148, ¶ 7, 800 N.W.2d 710;seeN.D.C.C. § 1–02–38 (“In enacting a statute, it is presumed that: ... [a] just and reasonable result is intended.”). Extrinsic aids may be used to interpret a statute to avoid an absurd result, Mertz, at ¶ 7, and to determine whether the interpretation is consonant with legislative intent. Geiser, at ¶ 9. In Geiser, at ¶ 21, we held “N.D.C.C. § 19–03.1–22.2 does not apply to an unborn child.” In reaching our decision, we said:

The legislative history of N.D.C.C. § 19–03.1–22.2 does not indicate that the Legislature intended the statute to apply to unborn children. Hearing on H.B. 1351 Before the House Judiciary Comm., 58th N.D. Legis. Sess. (Jan. 22, 2003).

....

This Court has held: “When the plain language of a statute is not ‘transparent,’ our codified rules of statutory interpretation direct us to look to the Code itself in determining the meaning of statutory terms.” N. X–Ray Co., Inc. v. State ex rel. Hanson, 542 N.W.2d 733, 735 (N.D.1996) (citing N.D.C.C. § 1–02–02). We review other provisions of the code to assist in the interpretation of N.D.C.C. § 19–03.1–22.2(1)(b).

Section 14–10–01, N.D.C.C., states: “Minors are persons under eighteen years of age. In this code, unless otherwise specified, the term ‘child’ means ‘minor’. Age must be calculated from the first minute of the day on which persons are born to the same minute of the corresponding day completing the period of minority.” Geiser asserts N.D.C.C. § 14–10–01, clearly establishes that: “ ‘child’ means a person who is a ‘minor’, whose existence and age is reckoned from the first minute of the day on which the person is born.” The State contends if the Legislature intended “child” and “minor” to mean the same...