Cited by

§ 1-212, “where an ambiguity exists the title may be used to aid in the interpretation of the statute,”

(second alteration in Est. of Braden) ().

BRYSON Opinion of the Court ¶14 Turning to our canons of statutory interpretation, the canon of ejusdem generis “provides that general words which follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be interpreted as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class.”

the non-residential structure of another.” The court did not include the statutory definition of “enter or remain unlawfully.” ¶11 Our supreme court has held that superior courts “do not commit fundamental error” by failing to provide the jury with the “definitions of words whose legal and ordinary meanings overlap.” –39 (1986); –95 (1984) (holding that superior court did not commit fundamental error by not sua sponte defining “intentionally” as used in jury instructions because the statutory de

Webster's II New College Dictionary 236 (2001); (citing another definition of "confine" from Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1973)); see also Parsons v. Ryan, 912 F.3d 486, 504 (9th Cir. 2018) ("Confinement, of course, connotes a lack of control over whether to leave a particular place.").

(construing A.R.S § 13–708’s predecessor’s statute’s language of “or any other release” to be release after a conviction).

tential to cause death or serious physical injury versus a likelihood of causing death or serious physical injury.” ¶16 However, “[w]here terms used in an instruction have no technical meaning peculiar to the law in the case but are used in their ordinary sense and commonly understood by those familiar with the English language, the court need not define these terms.”

§ 1-212, but may be used to help interpret an ambiguous provision

CO. Opinion of the Court Sullivan, 290 P.3d at 454 (subsequent purchaser not within “class of consumers” protected by implied private cause of action under CFA); (statutory title may aid in interpreting statute).

Although a defendant is “entitled to an instruction on any theory reasonably supported by the evidence,” ¶ 14 (App. 2014), the court need not define every word used in the 4 STATE v. JACOBS Decision of the Court instructions

and State Colls, of Ariz., , and although statutory title headings are not part of the law, they can aid in its interpretation

The acting contrary to, or in defiance of the law; disobeying or disregarding the law.”).1 “Where terms used in an instruction have no technical meaning peculiar to the law in the case but are used in their ordinary sense and commonly understood by those familiar with the English language, the court need not define these terms.”

Under the statutory construction rule ejusdem generis, “general words which follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be interpreted” to apply “to persons or things of the same general nature or class.”

Ejusdem generis dictates that “general words [that] follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be interpreted as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class.”

¶ 10 The ejusdem generis canon of construction “provides that general words which follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be interpreted as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class.” , see also Black’s Law Dictionary 464 (8th ed.2004).

Under the ejusdem generis doctrine, “general words which follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be interpreted as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class.”

(holding that the court need not define a word if it is one commonly understood by those familiar with the English language).

P.3d 1158 (2005); P.2d 683 (1984); see also A.R.S.

“This rule provides that general words which follow the enumeration of particular classes of persons or things should be interpreted as applicable only to persons or things of the same general nature or class.”

(the court need not define a word if it is one commonly understood by those familiar with the English language).

§ 13-1304, which reads, “Kidnapping; classification; consecutive sentence.” Although “headings are not part of the law itself, where an ambiguity exists the title may be used to aid in the interpretation of the statute.”

In the context of this statute, we believe “confinement” means “imprisonment.” , (“The word ‘confine’ is defined ...