State v. Hirschfelder - 170 Wash. 2d 536, 242 P.3d 876 (2010)

Rule:

In any question of statutory construction, a court looks to ascertain the intention of the legislature by first examining a statute's plain meaning. Statutes must be interpreted and construed so that all the language used is given effect, with no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous. If the statute's meaning is plain on its face, then the court must give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent. 

Facts:

Defendant was employed as a choir teacher at a high school. He had sexual intercourse with a member of the high school choir several days prior to her graduation. At the time, the student was 18 years old. Defendant argued that because the statute at issue criminalized sexual intercourse with "minors," he committed no crime when he had sexual intercourse with an 18-year-old adult. Alternatively, he argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and violated his right to equal protection. 

Issue:

Did the statute violate the defendant’s equal protection rights? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court held that the statute criminalized sexual misconduct between school employees and full time registered students 16 or older. The statute's plain language unambiguously defined "minor" as a registered student and thus included students up to the age of 21. The statute did not violate defendant's equal protection rights. Hence, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.