State v. Spaulding , 1998 Me. LEXIS 33 ( 1998 )

RUDMAN, Justice.

[¶ 1] Donna M. Spaulding appeals from the judgment entered in the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Calkins, J.) affirming her conviction in the District Court (Augusta, Perry, J.) for tanfipering with public records in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A § 456(1)(A) (1983). Spaulding contends that her conduct, as a matter of law, was not a violation of 17-A M.R.S.A § 456(1)(A). We agree and vacate the judgment.

[¶ 2] In order to be employed as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) in Maine, an individual’s name must be listed on the CNA Registry maintained by the Department of Human Resources. On her application for listing on the CNA Registry, Donna Spauld-ing placed a checkmark beside the word “no” in response to the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?”. At the time Spaulding completed her CNA Registry application she had two prior criminal convictions: a 1994 conviction for unemployment fraud, 26 M.R.S.A § 1051(1) (1992); and a 1986 conviction for false representation to an overseer, 22 M.R.S.A § 4491 (1992).

[¶ 3] Spaulding was charged with tampering with public records or information, 17-A M.R.S.A § 456(1)(A), Class D. The District Court found Spaulding guilty and ordered Spaulding to pay a $400 fine. The Superior Court affirmed her conviction. This appeal followed.

[II4] When the Superior Court acts as an intermediate appellate court, we review directly the decision of the District Court. Melanson v. Belyea, 1997 ME 150, ¶ 4, 698 A.2d 492, 493. We review the trial court’s interpretation of a statute for errors of law. Id.

[¶ 5] Section 456(1)(A) of Title 17-A, Chapter 19, provides:

1. A person is guilty of tampering with public records or information if he:

A. Knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of any record, document or thing belonging to, or received or kept by the government, or required by law to be kept by others for the information of the government;....

Also within Maine’s criminal code, Chapter 19 (Falsification in Official Matters) is section 453, “Unsworn falsification.” Pursuant to this section, a person is guilty of unsworn falsification if:

A. He makes a written false statement which he does not believe to be true, on or pursuant to, a form conspicuously bearing notification authorized by statute or regulation to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable;

B. With the intent to deceive a public servant in the performance of his official duties, he

(1) makes any written false statement which he does not believe to be true, provided, however, that this subsection does not apply in the case of a written false statement made to a law enforcement officer by a person then in official custody and suspected of having committed a crime, except as provided in paragraph C; or

(2) knowingly creates, or attempts to create, a false impression in a written application for any pecuniary or other benefit by omitting information necessary to prevent statements therein from being misleading ...

17-A M.R.S.A. § 453 (1983).¹

[¶ 6] The issue in this case is whether Spaulding’s conduct — misreporting a material fact on a government form — constitutes tampering with a public record pursuant to section 456(1)(A). Spaulding argues that section 456 was not intended to criminalize the making of a false statement on a form then submitted to a public official. Spaulding contends that section 453 is the statutory provision intended by the legislature to address the making of false statements in forms submitted to public officials. Spaulding notes that section 453 criminalizes the falsification of forms then submitted to the government only when such falsification is intentional or when the form conspicuously bears on its face that false statements made therein are punishable. Criminalizing her conduct pursuant to section 456, argues Spaulding, unlawfully avoids the specific elements the legislature deemed necessary for criminal liability to attach for the same conduct pursuant to section 453. We agree.

[¶ 7] When interpreting a statute, we examine the plain meaning of the statutory language in order to give effect to the legislative intent, avoiding absurd, illogical, or inconsistent results. See Jordan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 651 A.2d 358, 360 (Me.1994). The plain wording of section 456 supports Spaulding’s argument that her conduct does not constitute “tampering with public records” pursuant to section 456. For Spaulding’s conduct to be criminal pursuant to section 456, “Tampering with public records or information,” the definition of “tamper” would have to diverge from its plain meaning.² The defining element of “tamper” is the alteration or change of an existing document. Spaulding did not alter or change information on a document; she incorrectly represented that she had no prior criminal convictions on her CNA Registry application. The language of section 456 addresses documents “received or kept by the government,” not those that will be received or kept by the government. If we accept the State’s construction of section 456, then we would effectively be holding that, pursuant to section 456, one could tamper with a blank piece of paper by writing a falsehood upon it and sending it to the government. See Finks v. Maine State Highway Comm’n, 328 A.2d 791, 798 (Me.1974) (“Absent a legislative definition ... [a term] must be given a meaning consistent with the overall statutory context, and be construed in the light of the subject matter, the purpose of the statute, the occasion and necessity for the law, and the consequences of a particular interpretation”) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

[If 8] While the legislative history of section 456, as evidence of legislative intent, is not extensive, it does support our interpretation. The comment for section 456 states that the section “is taken from the Proposed Criminal Code of Massachusetts, chapter 268, section 7.” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 456 comment (1975). The Massachusetts Revision Commission Note for section 7, tampering with public records or documents reads:

The protection given by § 7 to public records, documents and things kept by or for the information of the government is almost entirely absent under present statutes, unless there is a malicious injury to legal notices or other personal property ... The Commission believed such protection was needed, but each paragraph requires knowledge of falsity or of lack of authority, and paragraphs (b) and (c) require also intention to pass as genuine, or to destroy, the protected records, documents and things. Thus persons — often public servants — who inadvertently misuse them would not be liable....

Proposed Criminal Code of Massachusetts, C. 268, § 7 note (1972) (emphasis added).

[¶9] This note illustrates the point that section 7 was drafted to afford “protection” to government records — documents that have already been received by the government — and not to documents destined to be received by the government. This point is supported by the enunciated legislative intent of section 7 to avoid the imposition of liability upon public servants who might inadvertently mishandle public records, a legislative intent echoed in the comment to section 456 itself: “[i]t is drafted, however, so as not to include inadvertent mishandling of material.” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 456 comment (1975). These legislative history excerpts support our holding that the term “public records” as contemplated by section 456 refers to documents already received by the government, not documents that will be received by the government.

[¶ 10] Our examination of the statutory scheme embodied in Chapter 19, Falsification in Official Matters, also confirms our reading of section 456. In interpreting section 456, we look to create a harmonious result between section 453 and section 456 — presumably the intent of the legislature. See Davis v. Scott Paper Co., 507 A.2d 581, 583 (Me.1986); Finks, 328 A.2d at 795 (“Every statute must be construed in connection with the whole system of which it forms a part and all legislation on the same subject matter must be viewed in its overall entirety in order to reach a harmonious result which we presume the Legislature intended.”) (citations omitted); Friendship v. Bristol, 132 Me. 285, 289, 170 A. 496 (Me.1934) (in order for Court to determine legislative intent concerning statute it must consider sections of same statutory chapter together — “the legislative intent is to be drawn from a consideration of the whole act, and effect must be given, if possible, to every part of it”). We acknowledge that the law “permits one matrix of facts to generate, in terms of its legal consequences, more than one criminal offense.” Fuller v. State, 282 A.2d 848, 852 (Me.1971) (citing State v. Farnham, 119 Me. 541, 112 A. 258 (1921)). We consider section 453, however, not to assess an alternative criminal statute that Spaulding may have been prosecuted under, but rather to shed light on whether section 456 was intended by the' legislature to address Spaulding’s conduct at all.

[¶ 11] Spaulding knowingly submitted an application to the CNA Registry office that affirmatively omitted her prior criminal convictions. Pursuant to section 453, Spaulding would be criminally liable for this act if: (1) she made a written false statement she did not believe to be true on a form bearing notification authorized by statute or regulation to the effect that false statements made therein were punishable; or (2) the false statement was made with the intent to deceive a public servant in the performance of his official duties. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 453 (1983). The State contends that Spaulding may be prosecuted for the same act pursuant to section 456 although neither of the above-mentioned elements need to be proved.

[¶ 12] The 1975 Comment to section 453 states that “[t]he deception of a public servant is penalized here in narrow circumstances.” 17-A M.R.S.A. § 453 comment (1975).³ Allowing the State to prosecute Spaulding for her conduct, although the State did not have to demonstrate that Spaulding intended to deceive the State or that the form she filled out bore a notice that false statements made therein are punishable, considerably widens the circumstances under which one may be penalized for deceiving the government. Permitting the prosecution of Spaulding pursuant to section 456 circumvents the legislative intent behind section 453 and produces an inharmonious construction of Chapter 19. See Guilford v. Monson, 134 Me. 261, 185 A. 517 (1936) (“[A]ll the statutes on one subject are to be viewed as one. Such a construction must prevail as will form a consistent and harmonious whole, instead of an incongruous, arbitrary and exceptional conglomeration.”) (quoting Smith v. Chase, 71 Me. 164 (1880)).

[¶ 13] Applicability of section 456 is logically limited to the alteration of an existing public record. Tampering pursuant to section 456 should not encompass the acts of unsworn falsification — that is the realm of section 453.

The entry is:

Judgment vacated. Remanded for the entry of a judgment of acquittal.

1 . Sections 453 and 456 are Class D crimes.

2 . In Keefe v. Donnell, 92 Me. 151, 42 A. 345 (1898), we considered the tenn "tamper” in the context of a charge of baEot tampering. We stated that:

the word “tamper” in a criminal statute at least, has the limited meaning of improper interference "as for the puipose of alteration; and to make objectionable or unauthorized changes.”

Id. at 159, 42 A. 345 (citations omitted). The relevant definition of "tamper” in Webster’s New International Dictionary reads, "[t]o meddle so as to alter a thing; esp., to make corrupting or perverted changes; as, to tamper with a document or a text; to interfere improperly.” Webster’s New International Dictionary 2575 (2d ed.1960); see Town of Freeport v. Brickyard Cove Assocs., 594 A.2d 556, 558 (Me.1991) (use of dictionary definition to assist Court in statutory construction).

3 . The 1975 Comment to section 453 states that:

This section continues the pattern of the first two sections of this chapter by providing a lesser penalty for falsity that is neither sworn nor in any official proceeding. The deception of a public servant is penalized here in narrow circumstances. There need not be any oath or affirmation when these circumstances occur. The provisions concerning available and unavailable defenses contained in the first two sections are continued here as well.

17-A M.R.S.A. § 453 comment (1975).