pari materia doctrine in Texas

2015(TBCE Br. 26-29.) The doctrine of in pari materia, as the TBCE notes, has the purpose of “harmonizing” statutory provisions that appear in different statutes “if possible.” See Burke v. State, 28 S.W.3d 545, 546-47 (Tex. Crim.

2015(TBCE Br. 26-29.) The doctrine of in pari materia, as the TBCE notes, has the purpose of “harmonizing” statutory provisions that appear in different statutes “if possible.” See Burke v. State, 28 S.W.3d 545, 546-47 (Tex. Crim.

2013The Doctrine of In Pari Materia “The doctrine of in pari materia is a rule of statutory construction that seeks to carry out the Legislature’s intent.” Jones v. State, 396 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tex.Crim.App.2013) (citing Mills v. State, 722 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Tex.Crim.App.1986)).

2008Burke, 28 S.W.3d at 546 (“The rule of in pari materia is nothing more than a principle of statutory interpretation, a means of devining (sic) and giving full effect to legislative intent”) (quoting Mills, 722 S.W.2d at 413 ); Cheney, 755 S.W.2d at 126 (“The doctrine of pari materia is, simply put, a principle of statutory interpretation.

2015Cheney v. State, 755 S.W.2d 123, 127 (Tex.Crim.App.1988); Williams v. State, 641 S.W.2d 236, 238 (Tex.Crim.App.1982)., This rule is based on the in pari materia rule of statutory construction, which provides that if two statutes deal with the same general subject, have the same general purpose, or relate to the same person or class of persons, they are considered in pari materia and should, wherever possible, be construed to harmonize any conflicts.

2015Id. § 311.026(b) (West 2013); see Bays, 396 S.W.3d at 590 ; see also Cheney v. State, 755 S.W.2d 123, 126 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (discussing the in pari materia rule of statutory construction which requires all parts of a statutory scheme on a same or similar subject to be given effect and construed in harmony with each other, and further requires a more detailed provision to prevail over a more general provision in the event of an irreconcilable conflict).

2019See Azeez, 248 S.W.3d at 194 (holding that appellant could not raise an in pari materia claim to quash a complaint accusing him of 9 failing to appear where the complaint did not allege any facts that the defendant had failed to appear specifically pursuant to a traffic violation); see also Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 893 (holding that in pari materia claim was not cognizable on pre-trial writ of habeas where assault indictment was valid on its face and did not allege facts indicating that hazing was involved).

2018See, e.g., Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 893 (concluding that in pari materia claim is not cognizable in pretrial writ of habeas corpus because appellant could pursue claim on appeal if necessary and because claim was not ripe for review: “An appellate decision on the in pari materia claim would be premature before the State has had an opportunity to develop a complete factual record during a trial.”).

2019See Azeez, 248 S.W.3d at 194 (holding that appellant could not raise an in pari materia claim to quash a complaint accusing him of 9 failing to appear where the complaint did not allege any facts that the defendant had failed to appear specifically pursuant to a traffic violation); see also Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 893 (holding that in pari materia claim was not cognizable on pre-trial writ of habeas where assault indictment was valid on its face and did not allege facts indicating that hazing was involved).

2011Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.026 (West 2005); see Azeez v. State, 248 S.W.3d 182, 192 (Tex.Crim.App.2008) (stating that government code section 311.026 codifies doctrine of in pari materia).

2015Deciding the in pari materia claim now on what would amount to a hypothetical set of facts that might be presented at appellant’s trial would be merely advisory.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 724 (stating that “pretrial habeas is unavailable when the resolution of a claim may be aided by the development of a record at trial” (citing Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 893 )). 25 the existing law, the Court of Criminal Appeals has sent us lower courts the following unequivocal messages through its current pretrial habeas jurisprudence: • Pretrial habeas and subsequent appeals

2015Deciding the in pari materia claim now on what would amount to a hypothetical set of facts that might be presented at appellant’s trial would be merely advisory.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 724 (stating that “pretrial habeas is unavailable when the resolution of a claim may be aided by the development of a record at trial” (citing Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 893 )). 25 the existing law, the Court of Criminal Appeals has sent us lower courts the following unequivocal messages through its current pretrial habeas jurisprudence: • Pretrial habeas and subsequent appeals

2007Cf., e.g. , Segura v. State , 100 S.W.3d 652, 654 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2003, no pet.) ("Under the in pari materia principle of statutory construction, two statutes with similarity of purpose must be harmonized if possible.

2007Cf, e.g., Segura v. State, 100 S.W.3d 652, 654 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.) (“Under the in pari materia principle of statutory construction, two statutes with similarity of purpose must be harmonized if possible.

2007In addition, the in pari materia rule of statutory construction “applies where one statute deals with a subject in comprehensive terms and another deals with a portion of the same subject in a more definite way.” See Alejos v. State, 555 S.W.2d 444, 450 (Tex.Cr.App.1977) (op. on reh’g).

2007In addition, the in pari materia rule of statutory construction "applies where one statute deals with a subject in comprehensive terms and another deals with a portion of the same subject in a more definite way." See Alejos v. State , 555 S.W.2d 444, 450 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977) (op. on reh'g).

2015Deciding the in pari materia claim now on what would amount to a hypothetical set of facts that might be presented at appellant’s trial would be merely advisory.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 724 (stating that “pretrial habeas is unavailable when the resolution of a claim may be aided by the development of a record at trial” (citing Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 893 )). 25 the existing law, the Court of Criminal Appeals has sent us lower courts the following unequivocal messages through its current pretrial habeas jurisprudence: • Pretrial habeas and subsequent appeals

2015Deciding the in pari materia claim now on what would amount to a hypothetical set of facts that might be presented at appellant’s trial would be merely advisory.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 724 (stating that “pretrial habeas is unavailable when the resolution of a claim may be aided by the development of a record at trial” (citing Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 893 )). 25 the existing law, the Court of Criminal Appeals has sent us lower courts the following unequivocal messages through its current pretrial habeas jurisprudence: • Pretrial habeas and subsequent appeals

2015Deciding the in pari materia claim now on what would amount to a hypothetical set of facts that might be presented at appellant’s trial would be merely advisory.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 724 (stating that “pretrial habeas is unavailable when the resolution of a claim may be aided by the development of a record at trial” (citing Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 893 )). 25 the existing law, the Court of Criminal Appeals has sent us lower courts the following unequivocal messages through its current pretrial habeas jurisprudence: • Pretrial habeas and subsequent appeals

2015Deciding the in pari materia claim now on what would amount to a hypothetical set of facts that might be presented at appellant’s trial would be merely advisory.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 724 (stating that “pretrial habeas is unavailable when the resolution of a claim may be aided by the development of a record at trial” (citing Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 893 )). 25 the existing law, the Court of Criminal Appeals has sent us lower courts the following unequivocal messages through its current pretrial habeas jurisprudence: • Pretrial habeas and subsequent appeals

2015Deciding the in pari materia claim now on what would amount to a hypothetical set of facts that might be presented at appellant’s trial would be merely advisory.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 724 (stating that “pretrial habeas is unavailable when the resolution of a claim may be aided by the development of a record at trial” (citing Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 893 )). 25 the existing law, the Court of Criminal Appeals has sent us lower courts the following unequivocal messages through its current pretrial habeas jurisprudence: • Pretrial habeas and subsequent appeals

2015Deciding the in pari materia claim now on what would amount to a hypothetical set of facts that might be presented at appellant’s trial would be merely advisory.”) (internal citations omitted); see also Doster, 303 S.W.3d at 724 (stating that “pretrial habeas is unavailable when the resolution of a claim may be aided by the development of a record at trial” (citing Smith, 185 S.W.3d at 893 )). 25 the existing law, the Court of Criminal Appeals has sent us lower courts the following unequivocal messages through its current pretrial habeas jurisprudence: • Pretrial habeas and subsequent appeals

2024See Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.026(a) (codifying common-law doctrine of in pari materia); Howlett v. Tarrant County, 301 S.W.3d 840, 846 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied) (explaining that doctrine of in pari materia applies when two statutes “share a common purpose or object”).

2024However, if the statutes are irreconcilable, “the special or local provision controls as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision 9 is the later enactment and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.” See id. § 311.026(b).

2008Id. (citing and quoting Ex parte Smith, 152 S.W.3d 170, 172 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004)).

2008Id. (citing and quoting Ex parte Smith, 152 S.W.3d 170, 172 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004)).

2002GOV’T CODE ANN. 6 3 11.026(a) (Vernon 1998) (“If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, the provisions shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both.“); State v. Kinkle, 902 S. W.2d 187, 189 (Tex. App.-Houston [ 14th Dist.] 1995) (noting that Government Code section 3 11.026 incorporates the common-law doctrine of in pari materia).

2002See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.026 (a) (Vernon 1998) ("If a general provision conflicts with a special or local provision, the provisions shall be construed, if possible, so that effect is given to both."); State v. Kinkle, 902 S.W.2d 187 , 189 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1995) (noting that Government Code section 311.026 incorporates the common-law doctrine of in pari materia).

2016The doctrine of in pari materia requires that the two statutes be read together and harmonized such that “effect will be given to all the provisions of each act if they can be made to stand together and have concurrent efficacy.” Id.

2014“The doctrine of in pari materia is a rule of statutory construction that seeks to carry out the Legislature’s intent.” Jones v. State, 396 S.W.3d 558, 561 (Tex. Crim.

2015This doctrine provides that “‘[w]here one statute deals with a subject in general terms, and another deals with a part of the same subject in a more detailed way, the two should be harmonized if possible; but if there is any conflict, the latter will prevail.’” Carlson v. City of Houston, 309 S.W.3d 579, 586 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.).

2013See Burke v. State, 28 S.W.3d 545, 547 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Carlson v. City of Houston, 309 S.W.3d 579, 586 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2010, no pet.). 2 The Attorney General asserts that sections 201.404 and 201.405 together act as a “special provision” that grants to a chiropractic patient the right of access to his chiropractic records which, by application of code construction act section 311.026(b), creates an exception to the allegedly conflicting “general provision” of section 201.206 that provides that the Board’s investigation files are confidential and not subject to any means of

2007The specific controls over the general if the two cannot be harmonized and there is no indication that the legislature intended to make the general act controlling."); State v. Magee , 29 S.W.3d 639, 640 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd) (citing, among other authority, Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 311.026 (a), (b) (Vernon 2005) (codifying instance of doctrine of in pari materia )).

2007The specific controls over the general if the two cannot be harmonized and there is no indication that the legislature intended to make the general act controlling.”); State v. Magee, 29 S.W.3d 639, 640 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. refd) (citing, among other authority, Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.026(a), (b) (Vernon 2005) (codifying instance of doctrine of in pari materia)).

1991Breeding v. State, 762 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1988, pet. ref’d).

1991Breeding v. State, 762 S.W.2d 737, 738-39 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1988, pet. ref’d).

2009ANN. art. 42.03 § 1(b). [7] See Ex parte Wilkinson, 641 S.W.2d 927, 931 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982) (discussing the doctrine of in pari materia). [8] 165 S.W.3d 695 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). [9] Id. at 696 . [10] Id. at 696-703 . [11] Id. at 699 (Cochran, J., concurring). [12] Id. at 706 (Keasler, J., dissenting). [13] Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 87 , 73 S.Ct. 534 , 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953). [14] Rodarte v. State, 860 S.W.2d 108, 109-10 (Tex.Crim.App.1993).

2009See Ex parte Wilkinson, 641 S.W.2d 927, 931 (Tex.Crim.App.1982) (discussing the doctrine of in pari materia). . 165 S.W.3d 695 (Tex.Crim.App.2005). .

2015III(1). 40 MCL 208.1301. 41 See Fradco v. Dep’t of Treasury, 495 Mich. 104, 114 , 845 N.W.2d 81 (2014) (“The Legislature’s use of the word ‘shall’ ... indicates a mandatory and imperative directive.”). 42 MCL 208.1301(1). 43 See also People v. Stephan, 241 Mich.App. 482, 497 , 616 N.W.2d 188 (2000) (recognizing that interpreting the unambiguous language of two conflicting statutes does not end the analysis because “courts do not construe individual statutes in a vacuum” but rather construe statutes together under the doctrine of in pari materia ). 44 Rathbun, 284 Mich. at 543–544, 280 N.W. 35

2015See 482, 497; 616 NW2d 188 (2000) (recognizing that MCL 208.45, as amended by 1991 PA 77 . interpreting the unambiguous language of two However, the new apportionment formula was conflicting statutes does not end the analysis still mandatory. because "courts do not construe individual statutes in a vacuum" but rather construe statutes The Department argues that the Legislature repealed together under the doctrine of in pari materia). the Compact's election provision when it enacted [*656] 44 Rathbun, 284 Mich at 543-544 (stating the BTA because § 301 of the BTA is the first tax further that co

2025Texas State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Abbott, 391 S.W.3d 343, 348 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (“Because these statutes are not in pari materia, do not share a common purpose, and are not intended to be construed together, it follows that one provision could not be considered as controlling over the other or as creating an exception to it.”).

2024Texas Ass’n of Acupuncture & Oriental Med. v. Texas Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs, 524 S.W.3d 734, 744 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, no pet.).

2017State v. Wiseman, 269 S.W.3d 769, 774 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008, no pet.) (citing Mills v. State, 722 S.W.2d 411, 413 (Tex. Crim.