Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that the "rule of lenity
can apply when a statute with criminal sanctions is applied in a noncriminal context."
Kastenv. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1, 16,131 S. Ct. 1325,
179 L. Ed. 2d 379(2011)(citing Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 11 n.8, 125 S. Ct.
377, 160 L. Ed. 2d 271 (2004)). Consistency of law generally requires that the rule
oflenity be applied regardless of"whether we encounter its application in a criminal
or noncriminal context." Leocal, 543 U.S. at 12 n.8.
The rule is simple: a criminal statute, like RCW 68.50.140(4), means the same
thing when it is used in a criminal case or a civil case.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
Southwick, Inc. v. Dep't ofLicensing Bus. & Professions Div., No. 95237-0
(Gordon McCloud, J., dissenting)
II. Plain language and context do not provide a clear explanation of what
"without authority of law" covers
With these rules of statutory interpretation in mind—^plain language, context,
and, if these rules lead to uncertainty, then other interpretive aids such as legislative
history and the rule oflenity—^we turn back to the criminal statute at issue here.
In this case, the relevant statutory provision is RCW 68.50.140(4). That
subsection, in context ofthe entire statute, states:
(1)Every person who shall remove human remains, or any part thereof,
from a grave, vault, or other place where the same has been buried or
deposited awaiting burial or cremation, without authority of law, with
intent to sell the same, or for the purpose of securing a reward for its
return, or for dissection, or from malice or wantonness, is guilty of a
class C felony.