¶ 33 When construing a statute, our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23. The most reliable indicator of legislative intent is the statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning.
However, where the issue on appeal is whether the evidence was admitted on an erroneous legal basis, we review the question of admissibility de novo . People v. Larsen , 323 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 1026, 257 Ill.Dec. 183, 753 N.E.2d 378 (2001). We also review de novo the construction of statutes ( People v. Elliott , 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23 ), and the Illinois Administrative Code ( People v. Montalvo , 2016 IL App (2d) 140905, ¶ 18, 407 Ill.Dec. 706, 64 N.E.3d 84 ). When construing a statute or administrative code provision, our "primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent, keeping in mind that the best and most reliable indicator of that intent is the statutory language itself, given its plain and ordinary meaning."
¶ 12 Whether the invitee requirement of section 24–1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(I) of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute is an element of the offense is a question of statutory interpretation. Our review, therefore, is de novo.People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23.¶ 13 Section 24–1.6(a)(1), (a)(3)(I) of the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute provides:
We now address that issue. ¶ 34 We review de novo the question of whether the statute authorizes separate convictions for the simultaneous possession of a firearm and ammunition because it presents a question of statutory interpretation. People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11. Our primary goal when construing a statute is to give effect to the legislature's intent, best indicated by giving the statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning.
This section also authorizes the Illinois Secretary of State "to summarily suspend the driver's license of any motorist arrested for [driving under the influence] who refuses to submit to chemical testing, tests above the legal alcohol concentration limit, or tests positive for an intoxicating substance." People v. Elliott , 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 16, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23 (citing 625 ILCS 5/11-501.1(d) (West 2002) ). The suspension has the purpose of promptly removing impaired drivers from the roadways and protects the public.
The State responds that defendant's separate and individual possession of each firearm without a valid FOID card constitutes separate and individual offenses, and therefore, the three convictions should be affirmed. ¶ 27 Our primary goal when construing a statute is to give effect to the legislature's intent, best indicated by giving the statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning. People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11. A reviewing court may also consider the reason for the law and the problems intended to be remedied. People v. Perez, 2014 IL 115927, ¶ 9.
The existence of different or alternative dictionary definitions of a word, each of which would make sense in a statute, itself indicates that the term is ambiguous and the statute is open to interpretation. Home Star Bank & Financial Services v. Emergency Care & Health Organization, Ltd., 2014 IL 115526, ¶ 39, 379 Ill.Dec. 51, 6 N.E.3d 128 ; accord Landis v. Marc Realty, L.L.C., 235 Ill.2d 1, 11, 335 Ill.Dec. 581, 919 N.E.2d 300 (2009) ; see also People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 13, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23 (noting that the various dictionary definitions “[i]n short, rather than resolv [ing] the issue at hand, * * * simply underscore[d] the problem”). In the instant case, the dictionary definitions are unhelpful to our analysis and, given the multiple definitions, lend support to our determination that the statute is ambiguous.
In construing the statutes, our “primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent, keeping in mind that the best and most reliable indicator of that intent is the statutory language itself, given its plain and ordinary meaning.” People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11, 378 Ill.Dec. 424, 4 N.E.3d 23. Our review is de novo.
The issues in this case involve statutory analysis and interpretation, presenting questions of law which are subject to de novo review. People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11. In construing a statute, our primary goal is to ascertain and effectuate the legislature's intent.
Because the construction of a statute is a question of law, our review is de novo. People v. Elliott, 2014 IL 115308, ¶ 11. ¶ 10 Neither the appellate court majority nor the dissent analyzed the issue correctly. Although it reached the correct result, the appellate court majority relied on the public expression doctrine, which, as we will see, could lead one to an erroneous conclusion about what the statute requires.