In the Matter of Wayne P., 65 N.Y.2d 1061 (1985)
When a juvenile violates the conditions of a hunting license under the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), they are not immune from prosecution under the Penal Law for conduct that would otherwise constitute a crime.
Summary
Wayne P., a 14-year-old, was found by Family Court to have violated Penal Law § 265.05 after allegedly firing a shotgun at motorcyclists, leading to a juvenile delinquency adjudication. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that the ECL exclusively governed his conduct. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that violating the hunting license terms does not shield a juvenile from Penal Law consequences for otherwise criminal actions. The Court emphasized that the ECL does not automatically supersede the Penal Law and that specific language is required to indicate such an intention.
Facts
Wayne P., age 14, allegedly fired a shotgun at three motorcyclists in a field near his home.
He possessed a hunting license but was unaccompanied by a licensed adult at the time of the incident, although his mother could observe him from the house.
Family Court found that this violated Penal Law § 265.05, which prohibits individuals under 16 from possessing certain weapons, even if otherwise lawful, and adjudged him a juvenile delinquent.
Procedural History
Family Court adjudicated Wayne P. a juvenile delinquent.
The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) exclusively governed the respondent’s conduct.
The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order, reinstated the Family Court’s adjudication of juvenile delinquency, and remitted the case to the Appellate Division for consideration of the facts.
Issue(s)
Whether the sanctions contained in the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) for violation of a hunting license supersede the provisions of the Penal Law proscribing what would otherwise be criminal conduct when committed by a juvenile.
Holding
No, because absent evidence of legislative intention to make the ECL the exclusive means of punishing such conduct, a juvenile who exceeds the scope of their hunting license is not immune from prosecution under the Penal Law.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals determined that Family Court had jurisdiction to determine whether the respondent violated section 265.05 of the Penal Law. The Court emphasized that section 265.05 reflects a specific legislative intent to proscribe certain conduct when engaged in by juveniles and thus defines such conduct as juvenile delinquency. It further reasoned that the respondent’s possession of the shotgun, while unaccompanied, was not in compliance with the conditions of his hunting license. The court found no evidence of legislative intent to make the ECL the exclusive means of punishing conduct that would otherwise be criminal. The court cited ECL 71-0905(1), which states that no provision of the Fish and Wildlife Law shall be construed as amending, repealing, superseding, or limiting any provision of the Penal Law unless expressly stated. The court acknowledged that ECL 11-0701(1) is expressly applicable notwithstanding the Penal Law, meaning that a licensed juvenile adhering to the hunting license limitations cannot be prosecuted under the Penal Law. However, a juvenile who exceeds the scope of their license is not immune from prosecution under the Penal Law. As stated by the court, “[s]o long as a person between the ages of 14 and 16 observes the limitations of his hunting license…he cannot be prosecuted for what otherwise would subject him to liability under the Penal Law. A juvenile who exceeds the scope of his license, however, is not immune from prosecution under the Penal Law.” There were no dissenting or concurring opinions.