Statutory Interpretation

As used in this course, statutory interpretation refers to resolving an ambiguous term--a term that can have two distinct meanings. It also refers to determining the meaning of a vague or capacious word, one whose outer boundaries can be unclear. Often courts will narrow the ambit of a term that has broad or general meaning. In the Smith case we read during the mock class, the Supreme Court declined to limit the full ambit of the term "use," whereas the dissent would have narrowed its meaning, in context, to cover only use as a weapon.

By contrast, in the previous sections we have sought to determine what mens rea term applies to certain elements. Very broadly, we could call this task statutory interpretation as well. After all, courts seek to determine what mens rea the legislature intended the statute to provide. Nevertheless, we will use the term "statutory construction" for the process of determining the mens rea. That's because courts are not interpreting a word but building the statute by supplying a mens rea to statutes that are silent as to a given element. 

This contrast matters. When we perform ordinary statutory interpretation, we start with the plain or ordinary meaning of the words. When we determine mens rea, we largely ignore plain meaning and instead follow traditional rules that pertain to mens rea in particular. 

Below we will see that criminal statutes often contain ambiguous terms that courts must interpret. We will start, naturally, with the plain meaning rule. We will then move to other interpretative techniques, including one canon of construction in particular, ejusdem generis. We will also consider another canon of construction, the rule of lenity.