California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Bright, In re, 13 Cal.App.4th 1664, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 105 (Cal. App. 1993):
Accepting Sands's finding the phrases "capital crime" (Cal. Const., art. I, 12) and "offense punishable with death" ( 1270.5) are ambiguous because either may refer to the nature of the charges or the actual punishment risked, we resolve the ambiguity according to two familiar rules. One of the primary aids in the construction of an ambiguous constitutional or statutory provision is " 'consideration of the object to be accomplished.' [Citation.]" (Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1990) 50 Cal.3d 402, 407, 267 Cal.Rptr. 589, 787 P.2d 996.) Also, where a provision is susceptible of two alternative interpretations, the one that leads to the more reasonable result will be followed. (Lungren v. Deukmejian (1988) 45 Cal.3d 727, 735, 248 Cal.Rptr. 115, 755 P.2d 299.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.