Corners Family Farmers v. State, 173 Wn.2d 296, 305, 268 P.3d 892(2011). If the
language ofa statute is plain on its face,then we will give effect to that plain meaning
as an expression oflegislative intent. Dep't ofEcology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC,
146 Wn.2d 1, 9-10, 43 P.3d 4(2002)(citing State v. J.M., 144 Wn.2d 472, 480, 28
P.3d 720(2001)).
But "[i]f, after examining the ordinary meaning of the statute's language and
its context in the statutory scheme, more than one reasonable interpretation exists,
we treat the statute as ambiguous." Conover, 183 Wn.2d at 711-12 (citing State v.
Jacobs, 154 Wn.2d 596, 600-01, 115 P.3d 282 (2005)). At that point, we turn to
other "aids to construction." Campbell & Gwinn, 146 Wn.2d at 12(citing Cockle v.
Dep't ofLabor & Indus., 142 Wn.2d 801, 808, 16 P.3d 583 (2001); Timberline Air
Serv., Inc. v. Bell Helicopter-Textron, Inc., 125 Wn.2d 305, 312, 844 P.2d 920
(1994)).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Dep't ofLicensing Bus. & Professions Div.,^o. 95237-0
(Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)
Sometimes that "aid" is "legislative history." Id. Sometimes that "aid" is the
rule of lenity. Conover, 183 Wn.2d at 712 (ambiguities in criminal statutes are
resolved against the government and in favor of the defendant (citing Jacobs, 154
Wn.2dat601)).
The majority declines to apply the rule of lenity on the ground that neither
party raised it. Majority at 4 n.4. This is incorrect. Southwick squarely raised and
briefed the issue in its reply in the Court of Appeals. Appellant Southwick's Reply
Br. at 21-23.
The majority also declines to apply the rule of lenity because it "would
undermine the purpose of the [Washington State Funeral and Cemetery] Board's