If a statute is clear and free from ambiguity, we may not disregard the letter of the law. N.D.C.C. § 1-02-05. [¶ 16] Further, we “construe! ] statutes to avoid absurd or illogical results.” Mertz v. City of Elgin, Grant Cnty., 2011 ND 148, ¶ 7, 800 N.W.2d 710; see N.D.C.C. § 1-02-38 (“In enacting a statute, it is presumed that: ... [a] just and reasonable result is intended.”). Extrinsic aids may be used to interpret a statute to avoid an absurd result, Mertz, at ¶ 7, and to determine whether the interpretation is consonant with legislative intent. Geiser, at ¶ 9. In Geiser, at ¶ 21, we held “N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-22.2 does not apply to an unborn child.” In reaching our decision, we said: The legislative history of N.D.C.C. § 19-03.1-22.2 does not indicate tha 885 P.2d 596 (1994) (<HOLDING>); State v. Martinez, 139 N.M. 741, 137 P.3d
holding an unborn child is a child for purposes of prosecuting chemical endangerment of a child holding an unborn child is not a child for purposes of criminal prosecution of mistreatment of a child holding a criminal charge of endangerment of a child does not apply to a pregnant woman who ingests an illegal substance that results in the transmission of drugs to her child through the umbilical cord holding a mothers ingestion of a controlled substance while pregnant does not constitute child abuse as an unborn child is not a person for purposes of criminal prosecution holding ohios child endangerment statute does not apply to mothers who abuse drugs during pregnancy