dissenting.
This case involves the crime of theft. In the context of theft within Title 16 of the Georgia Code, the legislature has specifically defined the term “motor vehicle” broadly enough to encompass a riding lawnmower. See OCGA §§ 16-8-82 (2) and 16-5-44.1 (a) (2). The majority, however, erroneously relies on inapplicable “motor vehicle” definitions that apply to the use of a vehicle on the roads (see generally OCGA § 40-1-1), as opposed to the theft of a vehicle, in order to reach its intended conclusion that a riding lawnmower is not a “motor vehicle” for purposes of sentencing for theft. I therefore must respectfully dissent from the majority’s erroneous conclusion that a riding lawnmower is not a “motor vehicle” for purposes of sentencing pursuant to OCGA § 16-8-12 (a) (5) (A).
OCGA § 16-8-12 (a) (5) (A) provides that
if the property which was the subject of [a] theft was a motor vehicle or was a motor vehicle part or component which exceeded $100.00 in value . . . , [the thief shall be punished] by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years or, in the discretion of the trial judge, as for a misdemeanor; provided, however, that any person who is convicted of a second or subsequent offense under this paragraph shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than 20 years.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Although the term “motor vehicle” is not defined in OCGA § 16-8-12 (a) (5) (A), “[i]n construing [this] statute, the cardinal rule is to glean the intent of the legislature.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Retention Alternatives, Ltd. v. Hayward, 285 Ga. 437, 438 (1) (678 SE2d 877) (2009). In order to do this, we must presume that the statute was
enacted by the legislature with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law and with reference to it. It is therefore to be construed in connection and in harmony with the existing law, and as a part of a general and uniform system of jurisprudence, and its meaning and effect is to be determined in connection, not only with the common law and the constitution, but also with reference to other statutes and the decisions of the courts.
(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. at 440 (2).
Accordingly, because the statute at issue here deals with the *255punishment relating to the theft of a motor vehicle, our task in this case is to determine the consistent intent of the legislature as it relates to the definition of the term “motor vehicle” in the context of criminal theft. In this regard, the legislature has made clear elsewhere in Title 16 that, when a “motor vehicle or motor vehicle part known to be illegally obtained by theft” is taken to a “chop shop” in order to be sold or disposed of, a “motor vehicle” would consist of
every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway which is self-propelled or which may be connected to and towed by a self-propelled device and also includes any and all other land based devices which are self-propelled but which are not designed for use upon a highway, including, but not limited to, farm machinery and construction equipment.
(Emphasis supplied.) OCGA § 16-8-82 (2). This definition of “motor vehicle” is obviously broad enough to encompass a riding lawnmower. Thus, if a riding lawnmower were stolen and taken to a “chop shop,” it would be a “motor vehicle” for purposes of its theft and storage or dismantling at a chop shop.
Under the majority’s analysis, however, a riding lawnmower would not be a “motor vehicle” if simply stolen, but would magically transform into a “motor vehicle” once taken to a chop shop for dismantling or sale. Similarly, an engine worth over $100 that was stolen from a riding lawnmower would not become a “motor vehicle part” until it was taken to a chop shop. Far from construing OCGA § 16-8-12 (a) (5) (A) “in harmony with” existing pronouncements by the legislature (see Retention Alternatives, Ltd., supra), the majority has interpreted the statute in a manner that creates conflict and leads to an absurd result. As such, the majority’s interpretation cannot stand. See Haugen v. Henry County, 277 Ga. 743, 746 (2) (594 SE2d 324) (2004) (“The judiciary has the duty to reject a construction of a statute which will result in unreasonable consequences or absurd results not contemplated by the legislature.”) (citation omitted).
OCGA § 16-5-44.1 provides even more evidence that the majority’s interpretation of the term “motor vehicle” runs directly contrary to the intent of the legislature. Indeed, when a person, “while in possession of a firearm or weapon obtains a motor vehicle from the person or presence of another by force and violence[,]” that person commits the offense of hijacking a “motor vehicle.” OCGA § 16-5-44.1 (b). “Motor vehicle” is broadly defined here as “any vehicle which is self-propelled.” OCGA § 16-5-44.1 (a) (2). Again, in the context of a vehicle being stolen, the legislature has made clear that the definition *256of “motor vehicle” would encompass a riding lawnmower. Yet, the majority would cite this statute to reach exactly the opposite result.
Moreover, the majority directly violates well-established rules of statutory construction when it contends that it is “illogical” to consider the definitions of “motor vehicle” from the “later enacted” hijacking and chop shop statutes when trying to discern the definition of “motor vehicle” in the context of theft. “Indeed, the courts are not only to be guided by the General Assembly’s last expression on a subject, but the latest declaration controls.” (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.) Tippins Bank & Trust Co. v. Southern Gen. Ins. Co., 266 Ga. 97, 98 (464 SE2d 381) (1995). Thus, again, these latest declarations from the legislature on the definition of “motor vehicle” in the context of theft only further support the notion that the legislature clearly intended to treat a riding lawnmower as a “motor vehicle” for purposes of theft. The majority, however, would interpret these latest and controlling definitions of the term “motor vehicle” in a manner that would reach a result that is directly contrary to the legislature’s expressed intent.
The problems with the majority arise from its reliance on Title 40 of the Georgia Code, as opposed to the aforementioned Georgia criminal statutes dealing directly with the theft of motor vehicles, in its attempt to glean the legislature’s intent with respect to the definition of the term “motor vehicle” in the context of motor vehicle theft. Title 40 has no applicability here, as the Code sections therein relating to “Motor Vehicles and Traffic” are designed to protect the public by regulating the use of vehicles on the road.5 They are not designed to protect individuals from having their personal property taken, as the criminal theft statutes are specifically designed to do. Indeed, our focus in this case is not on the thief s potential ability to drive away in a stolen car as the majority contends, but on the thief s act of stealing the property of another. The legislature has specifically included a broad definition of “motor vehicle” in the criminal theft context in order to accomplish the ends or protecting individuals from having their personal property stolen.
The majority is correct that the Court of Appeals has erred to the extent that it has relied on, and continues to rely on, OCGA § 40-1-1 for the definition of “motor vehicle” in the context of criminal theft cases that have nothing to do with the regulatory framework of Title 40. However, the majority would continue this erroneous reliance on *257Title 40 by its own analysis (even though it reaches a different result than the Court of Appeals). Consistent with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, but contrary to the Court of Appeals’ and the majority’s analysis, the legislature has made clear that, in the context of criminal theft, a riding lawnmower is in fact a “motor vehicle.” I would therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but only by following the clear intent of the legislature that both the majority and the Court of Appeals have ignored.
Decided November 23, 2009. Michael R. McCarthy, for appellant. KermitN. McManus, District Attorney, John S. Helton, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.I am authorized to state that Justice Thompson and Justice Hines join in this dissent.
In this connection, it makes sense that, in the context of regulating motor vehicles and traffic, the legislature has made a distinction between vehicles that would generally be used on the road and “[slpecial mobile equipment” that is “not designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons or property and only incidentally operated or moved over a highway.” OCGA § 40-1-1 (59).