Summary of Argument

E.G.'s conviction cannot stand because it rests on an absurd interpretation of the child pornography statute. The legislative history and purpose of child pornography laws demonstrate the law’s protective intent. The purpose of Washington’s sexual exploitation statute does not support charging or convicting E.G. for distribution of child pornography.

The interpretation and application of the child pornography statute to these facts contravenes the rehabilitative purposes of Washington’s juvenile justice system. In contrast to the child pornography statute’s focus on sexual abuse, prosecuting teenage sexting criminalizes normative adolescent exploration of sexual identity and relationships.

The registration consequences of convicting E.G. of felony child pornography further demonstrate the absurdity of the lower court’s interpretation. E.G. would have to comply with extensive and onerous registration requirements, noncompliance with which would subject E.G. to additional criminal consequences. E.G.’s registration information may be disseminated to members of the public, impacting his integration into society as an adult. If required to register, E.G. would be subjected to the lifelong consequence of being perceived as a dangerous sex offender.

Summary of Argument

The court's interpretation of a statute aims to determine and enact the legislature's intent. An interpretation resulting in absurd outcomes must be avoided as it is not assumed that the legislature intended such results. Furthermore, statutory interpretation strives to avoid constitutional conflict whenever such construction aligns with the statute's purpose.

Summary of Argument

The court's primary duty is to interpret legislation by discerning and implementing the intent of the legislature. In determining the intent of the legislature, courts avoid interpretations that result in absurd consequences. When a statutory interpretation leads to absurd or unlikely consequences, the court will consider the spirit of the enactment, rather than the literal words of the statute. Finally, when multiple interpretations of a statute are possible, courts generally choose the interpretation that avoids constitutional difficulties.

Summary of Argument

When interpreting a law, the court's main job is to figure out what the lawmakers intended. If a law is interpreted in a way that leads to nonsensical outcomes, courts should avoid that interpretation. It's assumed that lawmakers didn't intend for a law to have ridiculous effects. Similarly, laws are usually interpreted in a way that avoids conflicts with the constitution, as long as that interpretation makes sense with the purpose of the law.

Summary of Argument

The court's job is to figure out what the lawmakers meant when they wrote a law. If the law is read in a way that makes no sense, it's better to find another way to understand it. It's important to remember that laws should not go against the Constitution.