State v. Hirschfelder
170 Wash. 2d 536 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute's specific language defining a protected class (e.g., "registered student") controls over a general term used in the statute's title (e.g., "minor"). The statute is interpreted to give effect to all its terms, and the legislature's policy choice to protect individuals in relationships with inherent power imbalances will be upheld if there is a rational basis.
Facts:
- Matthew Hirschfelder, age 33, was employed as a choir teacher at Hoquiam High School.
- A.N.T., age 18, was a high school student and a member of the choir taught by Hirschfelder.
- Hirschfelder and A.N.T. were not married to each other.
- Hirschfelder was more than 60 months older than A.N.T.
- In 2006, several days before her graduation, Hirschfelder and A.N.T. engaged in sexual intercourse in his office at the high school.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged Matthew Hirschfelder in trial court with sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree.
- Hirschfelder filed a motion to dismiss the charge, arguing the statute did not apply because the student was 18.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss.
- The trial court certified the case for immediate review by the Washington Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) reversed the trial court, holding that the statute was ambiguous and applied only to students under 18.
- The State, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does former Washington statute RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b), titled 'Sexual misconduct with a minor,' prohibit a school employee from having sexual intercourse with a registered student who is 18 years of age or older?
Opinions:
Majority - Stephens, J.
Yes. The statute prohibits sexual intercourse between a school employee and any registered student age 16 or older, regardless of whether the student has reached the age of majority. The plain language of former RCW 9A.44.093(1)(b) defines the victim class as 'a registered student of the school who is at least sixteen years old.' At the time, other state laws defined a registered student as an individual up to 21 years of age. To interpret the statute as applying only to students under 18 would render the specific words 'registered student' meaningless, violating a core principle of statutory construction. Furthermore, even if the statute were ambiguous, legislative history shows a deliberate removal of an 'under 18' age cap to cover older students. The statute is not unconstitutionally vague as it provides clear notice of prohibited conduct, nor does it violate equal protection, as the state has a rational basis for protecting students from exploitation by those in positions of authority.
Dissenting - C. Johnson, J.
No. The statute should not be interpreted to criminalize this conduct because another provision within the same chapter provides a complete defense. The majority ignores RCW 9A.44.030(3)(d), which expressly states that it is an affirmative defense to a charge of 'sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree' if the defendant can prove they reasonably believed the victim was at least 18 years old. Since the student in this case was undisputedly 18, the defense applies directly. The two statutes do not conflict; one defines the offense, and the other provides a defense, and they should be read together harmoniously. The majority's interpretation improperly criminalizes conduct between two consenting adults for which the legislature has expressly provided a defense.
Analysis:
This case is a key example of statutory interpretation, establishing that specific, operative language within a statute's text prevails over a general or potentially conflicting title. The court's decision reinforces the canon of construction that all statutory language must be given effect and not rendered superfluous. By upholding the statute, the court affirmed the legislature's policy of protecting students within the K-12 system from exploitation due to the inherent power imbalance in the teacher-student relationship, even after the student becomes a legal adult. This precedent strengthens the legal foundation for status-based sexual misconduct laws where the victim's consent or age of majority is not a defense.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Hirschfelder