to ascertain its intent. The intent must be determined from the statute as a whole, as well as enactments relating to the same subject.”) (internal citation and quotes omitted); Seeba, 2006 SD 7, ¶ 12, 709 N.W.2d at 830) (noting that “[t]his Court gives ‘words their plain meaning and effect, and read[s] statutes as a whole, as well as enactments relating to the same subject ’ ”) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). Indeed, the public indecency and indecent exposure statutes prohibit the same types of obscene public exposure and were enacted and amended by the same Legislature, at the same time, and in the same bills. See 1998 SD Sess Laws ch 136, §§ 2 and 3; 2005 SD Sess Laws ch 120, §§ 298 and 299. See also Plenty Horse, 2007 SD 114, ¶ 6, 741 N.W.2d 763 n. 1, 741 N.W.2d at 765 n. 1 (<HOLDING>). Although the indecent exposure statute
holding that the legislature never intended for the dismissal and renewal statutes to overcome the statute of repose holding that when the legislature enacts a statute it is presumed that the legislature is aware of existing statutes recognizing that in 1998 the legislature repealed a previous version of the statute and enacted two statutes in replacement recognizing that the two statutes are nearly identical holding that a statute of limitations defense raised for the first time during trial was waived construing a previous version of federal rule of criminal procedure 12 that was not substantively different from the current version