State of New Hampshire v. John Decker Spitz

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2020-0006, State of New Hampshire v. John
Decker Spitz, the court on September 4, 2020, issued the
following order:

Having considered the parties’ briefs and the record submitted on appeal,
we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R.
18(1). The defendant, John Decker Spitz, who has a July birthday, appeals the
finding by the Circuit Court (Steckowych, J.) that he failed to obey vehicle
inspection requirements in violation of RSA 266:5 (2014) by driving his vehicle
on August 12, 2019, with an expired inspection sticker. On appeal, he
contends that he complied with those requirements because his vehicle was
inspected on August 6, although it failed inspection. We affirm.

Resolving the issues in the defendant’s appeal requires that we engage in
statutory interpretation. We review the trial court’s statutory interpretation de
novo. State v. Mfataneza, 172 N.H. 166, 169 (2019). When interpreting a
statute, we look first to the statutory language and, if possible, construe that
language according to its plain and ordinary meaning, in the context of the
entire statutory scheme. Id. We neither ignore the statute’s language nor add
words that the legislature did not include. Id.

Under RSA 266:1 (2014), annual inspections of motor vehicles may be
required to determine whether such vehicles are “fit to be driven.” RSA 266:1,
I. Such inspections must take place “during the month in which the birthdate
of the owner is observed, if the owner is a natural person.” RSA 266:1, II. RSA
266:5 sets forth the penalties for failing to obey inspection requirements and
provides that “[t]he driver or owner of any motor vehicle failing to comply with
the requirements . . . relative to inspection shall be guilty of a violation,” and
that the registration of any motor vehicle “which has not been inspected as
required or which is unsafe or unfit to be driven” may be suspended or
revoked. Under RSA 266:5, “no person shall be charged with a violation . . .
until a period of 10 days has elapsed from the date the inspection was due.”
RSA 266:5 further provides that “[i]t shall be a rebuttable presumption that a
vehicle that is required to be inspected is in violation of this section if the
vehicle fails to display a valid inspection sticker.”

Here, the defendant was required to have his vehicle inspected by July
31, 2019, because he has a July birthday. However, it is undisputed that his
vehicle was not inspected until August 6, that it failed the safety inspection at
that time, and that he drove it on August 12 with an expired inspection sticker.
Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err by finding the defendant
guilty of violating the vehicle inspection requirements. We disagree with the
defendant that the statutory scheme allowed him to drive his vehicle on August
12 with an expired inspection sticker. The defendant’s inspection was due on
July 31, and August 12 is more than 10 days “from the date the inspection was
due.” RSA 266:5.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2