Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by an individual convicted of second-degree criminal trespass for incidents occurring on school property. The appellant was charged under RCW 9A.52.080, a general statute prohibiting unlawful entry, but argued that his conduct should have been prosecuted under RCW 28A.87.055, a special statute concerning disobedience of orders to leave school premises. The incidents involved the appellant, not a student, being instructed to leave school property by school officials on two separate occasions. In both instances, the appellant failed to comply, leading to police involvement and subsequent charges of trespass. The trial court denied the appellant's motion to dismiss based on the argument of improper statute application and convicted him under the general statute. The appellant appealed, contending that the statutes were concurrent, meaning his conduct fell under the purview of the special statute. The appellate court, however, determined that the statutes did not address the same conduct. RCW 28A.87.055 requires intoxication or disruptive behavior for a violation, whereas RCW 9A.52.080 addresses unauthorized entry alone. The court found no legislative intent for the statutes to be concurrent and affirmed the convictions, emphasizing the distinct purposes of each statute in regulating behavior on school property.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of General and Special Statutessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated whether the general trespass statute RCW 9A.52.080 or the special statute RCW 28A.87.055 should apply to Shelby's conduct. It concluded that the statutes do not address the same conduct and thus are not concurrent.
Reasoning: The court concluded that RCW 28A.87.055 and RCW 9A.52.080 do not govern the same behavior.
Criteria for Concurrent Statutessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized that concurrency of statutes is determined by whether violations of the general statute occur each time the special statute is violated. In this case, the court found no concurrency between the statutes.
Reasoning: The criteria for determining whether statutes are concurrent hinge on whether violations of the general statute occur each time the special statute is violated, as illustrated by relevant case law.
Legislative Intent and Statutory Interpretationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court interpreted the legislative history of RCW 28A.87.055 and determined there was no intent for its concurrent application with RCW 9A.52.080.
Reasoning: The legislative history of RCW 28A.87.055 does not indicate an intent for concurrent application with RCW 9A.52.080.
Requirements for Criminal Trespasssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found Shelby guilty of second-degree criminal trespass under RCW 9A.52.080, which requires knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on another's property.
Reasoning: RCW 9A.52.080 defines criminal trespass in the second degree and requires that a person knowingly enters or remains unlawfully on another's property, categorizing it as a misdemeanor.
Special Statute for School Propertysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: RCW 28A.87.055 criminalizes willful disobedience of a school official's order to leave, with additional requirements such as proof of intoxication or disruptive behavior, distinguishing it from the general trespass statute.
Reasoning: RCW 28A.87.055 criminalizes willful disobedience of a school official's order to leave school property, with additional requirements such as proof of intoxication or disruptive behavior.