Semantics after a plea

Overheal

Came across this one and its a bit unclear, this is US law so amateur opinions are probably all that can be expected but:

"I affirm that I have never been adjudicated delinquent, convicted, or plead guilty or nolo contendere to any felonies and/or any second or subsequent alcohol/drug related misdemeanor offenses under the laws of this or any other state or under the laws of the United States of America during the 12 months prior to the start of school for the period of this award."

Provided that student, plead guilty in the last 12 months to Reckless driving, and that charge is related to a case# that originally charged the student with DUI at a time that was greater than 12 months prior to the start of the school period - can the student affirm the above statement? My instinct says yes, the DUI charge was dropped and replaced with RD, but the language suggests that the RD charge was "second or subsequent" possibly

Mr. Incognito

Overheal wrote: »

Came across this one and its a bit unclear, this is US law so amateur opinions are probably all that can be expected but:

"I affirm that I have never been adjudicated delinquent, convicted, or plead guilty or nolo contendere to any felonies and/or any second or subsequent alcohol/drug related misdemeanor offenses under the laws of this or any other state or under the laws of the United States of America during the 12 months prior to the start of school for the period of this award."

Provided that student, plead guilty in the last 12 months to Reckless driving, and that charge is related to a case# that originally charged the student with DUI at a time that was greater than 12 months prior to the start of the school period - can the student affirm the above statement? My instinct says yes, the DUI charge was dropped and replaced with RD, but the language suggests that the RD charge was "second or subsequent" possibly

Badly drafted for sure.

1. Did you plead guilty or no contest to a felony.

AND/ OR

2. Did you plead guilty a second or subsequent misdeameanor.

The answer to both of these in your example is no.

You can affirm.

Victor

Is this essentially an anti-alcohol/drug pledge?

It seems to relate only to "alcohol/drug related misdemeanor offenses".

Reckless driving, on the face of it, seems not to be an alcohol/drug related misdemeanor offense.

Peregrinus

I think you could affirm the statement. And I have two independent reasons for thinking so.

First, to have a "second or subsequent alcohol/drug related misdemeanor offense", you have to have a first alcohol/drug related misdemeanor offense. In this case you were charged with one alcohol-related offence, but the charge did not proceed and there was on conviction, etc. There has been no question of a second alcohol-related offence, so you're in the clear.

Secondly, this is a US-originating document and, in the expression "the laws of this or any other state or under the laws of the United States of America", I think it's strongly arguable that the word "any other state" means any other state of the United States. Because the US calls its sub-national divisions "states", when talking about other countries they will generally use words like "country" or "nation". US lawyers who see the word "state" assume it means a state of the Union, and in this case where it's bracketed by "this state" (definitely a state of the Union) and a reference to "the laws of the United States" that impression is only intensified. I don't think that, correctly understood, this declraration asks about foreign offences or convictions at all.

Victor

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, to have a "second or subsequent alcohol/drug related misdemeanor offense", you have to have a first alcohol/drug related misdemeanor offense.

Not just offence / charged, it has to be "adjudicated delinquent, convicted, or plead guilty or nolo contendere".

Should it be read as:

"I affirm that

I have never been adjudicated delinquent, convicted, or plead guilty or nolo contendere to

* any felonies and/or
* any second or subsequent alcohol/drug related misdemeanor offenses

under
* the laws of this or
* any other state or
* under the laws of the United States of America

during the 12 months prior to the start of school for the period of this award."

Now, was the reckless driving charge a felony charge?



The bit that says "I have never been adjudicated delinquent, convicted, or plead guilty or nolo contendere ... during the 12 months prior to the start of school for the period of this award." may be unfair when justice is slow.

Peregrinus

I agree with Victor's parsing of the statement. You only need to count offences of which you have been convicted (or equivalent), and you only need to disclose convictions for felonies, or second/subsequent convictions for alcohol/drug misdemeanors.

As for:

Victor wrote: »

Now, was the reckless driving charge a felony charge?

This reinforces my view that the form is only asking about offences in the US. While the US has a felony/misdemeanour distinction, many other countries either never had this distinction, or had it at one time but no longer have it. (Ireland did away with it about 20 years ago, from memory.) So the form is framed in terms which simply don't seem to contemplate offences tried outside the US.

Victor wrote: »

The bit that says "I have never been adjudicated delinquent, convicted, or plead guilty or nolo contendere ... during the 12 months prior to the start of school for the period of this award." may be unfair when justice is slow.

Could work both ways. You could have been charged relatively recently but, due to a grindingly slow judicial process, the charges could still be outstanding, in which case you don't have to disclose them.

But the question how badly drafted the disclosure is. "I have never been convicted of X offence during the past twelve months". You can say that you have never been convicted, or you can say that you have not been convicted during a specified period, but it makes no sense to say both.