context: While it is this Court's view that the statute is not ambiguous, the Court can understand why some question as to the meaning of the 5 V.I.C. SS 3734 exists.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 765 F. Supp. 261, 261
citation_a.parenthetical: "It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that the court must give effect, if possible, to every provision of a statute so that no part will be left inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant"
citation_a.sentence: Specifically, reading 5 V.I.C. § 3734 as a purely procedural requirement that does not authorize the expungement of misdemeanor convictions, has the following implications on the statute as a whole: (1) 5 V.I.C. § 3734 is partially duplicative of the section immediately following it, 5 V.I.C. § 3735; (2) the language in 5 V.I.C. § 3734 “under this section,” (emphasis added) is meaningless because 5 V.I.C. § 3734, absent the title, would provide no' circumstances under which a person could seek expungement under that particular section, see Abramson 765 F. Supp. at 261 (“It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that the court must give effect, if possible, to every provision of a statute so that no part will be left inoperative, superfluous, void, or insignificant”); (3) 5 V.I.C. § 3739 states that the “Superior Court may order the disclosure of the expunged conviction records .... ” (emphasis added), which is contradictory because the statute does not authorize expungement of convictions; and (4) ■ although titles of a statute are not considered law under 1 V.I.C. § 45, they may be an indication of legislative intent when a statute is otherwise ambiguous.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that a title may be resorted to as an aid to construction
citation_b.sentence: See Keenan v. Price, 68 Idaho 423, 439, 195 P.2d 662 (1948) (noting that a title may be resorted to as an aid to construction); 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47:3 (7th ed.) (“Titles have a communicative function.