Oh, Brother, Where Are Thou, Indeed

 State v. Williams, Minn.Ct.App., 3/17/2009.  The state charged Prodochee Williams, age thirty-one, with first degree criminal sexual conduct, alleging that he had sex with his fifteen-year old half sister.  The amended Complaint alleged that Mr. Williams had a "significant relationship" with his half sister.  The defense moved to dismiss, arguing, successfully in the trial court, that "half-brother" is not included in the list of defined "significant relationships."  Minn.Stat. 609.341, Subd. 15(2).  The state appealed this pretrial ruling.

Here's the statutory definition of a "significant relationship":

any of the following persons related to the complainant by blood, marriage, or adoption: brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, first cousin, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, grandparent, great-grandparent, great-uncle, great-aunt.

The Court of Appeals flew down to the State Law Library and scooped up all of the dictionaries, legal and otherwise.  It seems that we live in more enlightened times, as the most recent editions of these dictionaries all defined "brother" to include "half brother."  Here, for instance, is what the Oxford English Dictionary had to say about the word, "brother" (1987):

The word applied to a male being to express his relationship to others (male or female) as the child of the same parent or parents.

. . . .

. . . The son of the same parents. But often extended to include one who has either parent in common with another (more strictly half-brother, or brother of the half blood)[.]

The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary 1132 (1987).

Well, that settles it, one would think. 

“Where the legislature’s intent is clearly discernable from plain and unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and we apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Hans Hagen Homes, Inc. v. City of Minnetrista, 728 N.W.2d 536, 539 (Minn. 2007); see also Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2006) (providing that when the language of a statute is “clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit”).

Not so.  Leave it to the legislature to muck things up.  (According to www.askoxford.com, "muck" is to behave in a silly or aimless way; it fits.)  It seems that the legislature has sometimes included "half-[whatever]" in its laundry lists of family relations.  This lets the court loose with hammer and nail for some statutory construction.  Here's the pithy conclusion:

If this court were to interpret the law to exclude half-brothers, the law would then include step-brothers (with no blood relation) and cousins (genetically more distant than half-brothers) but exclude a brother related by half blood. This result would both be illogical and contrary to the overall statutory purpose of prohibiting intra-family sexual contacts.

The Court of Appeals reverses the dismissal and remands.

---

Evelyn Mulwray: She's my daughter.
[Gittes slaps Evelyn]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my sister...
[slap]
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my daughter...
[slap]
Evelyn Mulwray: My sister, my daughter.
[More slaps]
Jake Gittes: I said I want the truth!
Evelyn Mulwray: She's my sister AND my daughter!

Chinatown, 1974.