Finding Utah Legislative Intent

• Publication year: 1995
• Pages: 11
• Citation: Vol. 8 No. 2 Pg. 11

Finding Utah Legislative Intent Vol. 8 No. 2 Pg. 11 Utah Bar Journal February, 1995

James G. McLaren, J.

The Utah Supreme Court has often expressed its view that its primary responsibility in construing legislation is to give effect to the underlying intent of the legislature.^[1] Despite this clear warning, many attorneys do not brief the issue of legislative intent in appropriate cases. An attorney will appear unprepared to the court if he or she is unable to answer oft-asked questions; "What did the legislature mean by this?" or "What was the evil the legislature sought to remedy?" I have heard appellate counsel tell the court that "no record exists indicative of legislative intent" or that they "have gone through the record and found nothing." Subsequently, routine checks by court staff of house and senate debates have uncovered language that clarifies legislative intent. Counsel either did not research legislative intent or did so ineffectively. This article explains the fundamentals of researching Utah legislative intent.

One should first determine whether briefing the issue of legislative intent is appropriate. If the language of the statute is unambiguous, the court will not look beyond the plain language of the statute to discern legislative intent.^[2] However, when statutory language is ambiguous, briefing the issue of legislative intent may be crucial to a particular construction of a statute. When a legislative history exists, the courts do not hesitate to use it. Indeed, "courts must conclude from the context and history of statutes the most likely intent of the legislature in drafting and adopting the statute."^[3]

In Hansen v. Salt Lake County, 794 P.2d 838, 842-45 (Utah 1990), the Supreme Court reviewed the evolution of legislative amendments and compared the changing language. The Court also quoted the floor debates of the house and senate. Remarks from the house were also quoted in State v. Russell, 791 P.2d 188, 191 (Utah 1990). The Court noted that "[t]he legislative intent in changing the wording of the aggravated robbery statute in 1975 is clarified by the records of the debates in both the house and the senate." There are other recent cases indicating the reliance upon house and senate debates by both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.^[4]

In view of this reliance upon legislative history to discern intent, it is important to be able to find the history if one exists. There is a logical progression in finding records that reveal legislative intent I shall explain using a specific example.

An issue arises over a working mother whose husband grew marijuana in the basement. Will she lose her home under Utah Code Annotated section 58-37-13(1) (i)? This statute provides:

(1) The following are subject to forfeiture, and no property right exists in them: (i) all warehousing, housing and storage facilities, or interest in real property of any kind used, or intended for use, in producing, cultivating, ware-housing, storing, protecting, or manufacturing any controlled substances in violation of this chapter, except that:

(i) any forfeiture of a housing, warehousing, or storage facility or interest in real property is subject to the bona fide security interest of a party who could not have known in the exercise of reasonable diligence that a violation would take place on the property;

(ii) an interest in property may not be forfeited under this subsection if the holder of the interest did not know of the act which made the property...