Holtcamp v. State

¶1Judge, dissenting.

¶2Irrespective of whether the sexually violent predator law is considered penal or remedial, individuals subject to involuntary, indefinite civil commitment under the law will be deprived of their liberty in nearly all meaningful ways. It is this indisputable impact on the fundamental interest in liberty, not this Court’s characterization of the purpose of the law, which should guide the resolution of the statutory ambiguity in this case. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

¶3Section 632.488, RSMo 2000, provides that the State can file a commitment petition “prior to the anticipated release of a person ... who has been convicted of sexually violent offense.” The majority concludes that this language is ambiguous with respect to whether an individual must be incarcerated for a sexually violent offense at the time the State files a commitment petition. The majority resolves the ambiguity by broadly construing the law to effectuate the remedial purpose of protecting the public.

¶4While there are many Missouri cases holding that a remedial law should be broadly construed, this rule originated in cases interpreting statutes that did not implicate fundamental liberty interests.1 For instance, in State ex rel. LeFevre v. Stubbs, 642 S.W.2d 103 (Mo. banc 1982), cited by the majority, the Court broadly construed a statute dealing with the redemption of a deed of trust to real estate. In turn, Stubbscited State ex rel. Brown v. Board of Education of City of St. Louis, 294 Mo. 106, 242 S.W. 85 (1922), a case involving the statutory authority of the St. Louis superintendent of schools. Neither the majority nor the State have identified any Missouri cases holding that an individual’s fundamental right to liberty can be taken away based upon judicially crafted canons of statutory interpretation instead of explicitly clear statutory authority. To the contrary, Missouri cases indicate that where fundamental liberty interests are involved, there must be strict and literal compliance with statutes authorizing state action that interferes with those interests. See In re K.A.W., 133 S.W.3d 1, 16 (Mo. banc 2004)(requiring strict and literal compliance with statute authorizing the termination of parental rights). Given the fundamental liberty interests involved in this case, any statutory ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the preservation of liberty. Consequently, I would hold that the trial court was without authority to proceed with the case because the sexually ■violent predator law only permits commitment of those individuals incarcerated for *544a sexually violent offense at the time the commitment petition was filed.2