noting that interpretation of a statute is restricted by the rule of lenity
How later courts described this case
- noting that interpretation of a statute is restricted by the rule of lenity
- discussing adoption of approach of ALI’s Model Penal Code
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice RIVERA-SOTO,
dissenting.
The Appellate Division succinctly noted that “[t]he predominant issue in [this] case is whether a parent with joint custody can be *202 guilty of kidnapping his or her own child.” State v. Froland, 378 N.J.Super. 20, 25 , 874 A.2d 568 (App.Div.2005). In the particularly egregious facts presented in this case — where one parent absconds with the children with the obvious intent to permanently deprive the other parent of any contact with the children, leaving behind no clue as to their whereabouts or well-being — the panel concluded that “the kidnapping statute applies to such a parent.” Ibid.
For the plain, common sense and rational reasons so aptly set forth in the Appellate Division’s opinion, the kidnapping statute, N.J.S.A 2C:13 — 1, certainly applies to those instances where a parent, even one with joint custody, secretly steals the children with the purpose and effect of taking them without the other custodial parent’s consent. Because those self-evident reasons are rejected by the majority, and based on them, I respectfully dissent.
For reversal and remandment — Chief Justice RABNER, and Justices LONG, LaVECCHIA, WALLACE, AND HOENS — 5.
For affirmance — Justice RIVERA-SOTO — 1.