Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1945 )

.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXA$j
AUSTIN .’
SRoVER SELLERS :
*T~QRNEYGENERAL
_.: i.
3 ..
i
_’
.
xonorime iv.K. mclaln
Couoty Attornay
Ccorgettrm,Texss
ana hdafinita.
b of oux County omfi
purchases corn as ,it
The tiller sells th1.srosa anA it contains .0733.
x aIT2
bOllVblC~d thtrt.liS
did.nOt %ltC?XtiOil~l&
VIO-
let0 tho ls3. maor these oircunstsnces,noda
he be pli1t.y , .fn your opinion, of violatingArt+
CL? ,1493? I do not wish to file a co.z&&3t in
any of these cases kdoss we hovc~o reasono);la
&mna:to Convs.ct.‘~
.
~o~onorablci
3.. IL HcClsin, Page 2
a
.Yodr‘&p&ion that the'.Artiol~e und.oroonsideration
1s "va$uo bna i.ndsfinito ana ,inoapableof cnforoementPmay
b3.corrsct. To our mind it is ,a question that is ,n?tFntire-.
ly frsfifrom doubt. iW;;'e\r~r, we thi.nkthat the'req,ud?tm3y
b0 praoticsl.Jydisposed of on oth3r grounds.
Khilo it is gonerally,true tl;otintent or,wilful-. .::'_:,I
noss is finelement of a crZains1 offense such is not neoes-
'3arilythe ca?o. l!snystatutory offenses noa punish for act8
regaralesoof Dho intent of the'defendant and this is usually
the casd 4n the offenses pertaining to f00a and drug law en-
foroezizent.
.'12Ter. Jur. 247; 26 Cow. 3. 765. Ho?z3ver,tho
obsenoo of‘;&&ynaocossitgon the part or the Stat0 to pleaa
or p?gva jntent, knowlodge or v&lfulness, does not moan that
the itafendantis preclpded from setting up a mistake :of,faot
as a dsfense in 'a'proi~rc3se. Article 41 of OUT Penal Codo ,,-1..
:
reads as PolJ.qws: : ?' '~
..~'~ ....~ . .' ,_:
"If 8.person'lc.do&ng under a mistako 3s to ._:.r
.."
'a,
porticulor fact shall a0 tip, act qhich vJ0uia i- -',.. ,. :
otherwise.bc OrimInal he is guilty df no offense, * ...;;...
'.:&tit
-themistake of fact ~hioh will excus3 must
.-'.be
such that the person so acf;incunder.B mln-
-'take.would havs bsan excusable hsd hi3 oonjeotura ..
as'to the fast been corroot, and.it must also be .I
such mist&e es doe3 not arisa from a wdnt of pro-
per.:o&reon the prt of the person so ooting.ll
Nu&ous deoisions Inve &is&. under thio Artiola but of p&-
titular gignnificatica to our inquiry are tl~osodealing ivith
alleged violations of the food lass. In M.l.sonv, Stato, 56 '(
the .aefendsnt was oharged with ‘vioti
s. w. 2a 463 ,... tin%.the ~-.
Pure Food L3vJ 3nd fined @O.OO. Ho was.the macager of a era- .
cery'stbre and an ins.pcotorfound puffed cans on hi& shelves .-
which proved to be adult&rated'Y.&en analyzed. Th3 Court sum-
marized the defen43ntts teatiuony impthis lanGua&c,,"In short,
he tostificd'.that ho did not kno*wthat any edultoroted goods
were on his shelves, sayin& that ,he,;oould not knowingly have
exposo~asuch (gods for s31e, and, furth+:r,tPat h3 viontover. 2
his sto&k and triad to piok out mercl1andi.Whe thoucht ~33
adulternted." Althouch thi:statute so srovidod, the cour~t
held th?t~it NRS error for the court b&w to charge that, ,
*IItoh33.1not be cecessary.for the indiotzeat to allegc or
for ~the state to prove that the act or ornisslonv~as knozingly
done or onlitted." Th& court also quoted the Article3sot out
above ond stotcd,.l*Ifanother trial ba had, c ohare uoder
the~proyisipnoof Article 41, supca,~should bo sutrmfttodto
the jwy . VI TO the som3 effect Andyliko:;iaodonlln,: .~ithpu.re
fdod violations are Keaton v. State, 151.S. !;.2d 019 and
Vauf;hnv. State, 219 S. 1'!. 205. Ot.llurCBSOS booring on the :j'
. .
j{onOrable i:!. IL EcClain, l?apeeo.3
potnt but concerned rvithviolations of the liquor l.ausand
the al.cGholicaontcnt of the beverages involved are i?ise v.
state, 70 S. Xi.2d 424 and Patrick v. State, 78 S. 7;.947.
'tecbncludc that kdo~ledse, ,intentor dllfulnoss
m-o not elcn?ents.``hich nust be charged and proved by tha
state to z~ke out a case under Article I.493beoausc they are
not repUiTed U!ldW th0 StatutGry definition Of th0 offense.
.``or;evor, the defendant io not deprived of his right to shoe
e mistake Of fact through no lack of diliCenoo on his port .
8s o.ooxple~s defense to tbw charge. fn ooch case his de-
fcnsivo mtter .bill. raise 0 qucotion of fact for the jury
under an appropriate char&e phraaod according to Article 41
sU;~a. Under .thafoota inquired about it would a5poar-that
the rnillor.undor invos ti@tion.hos aub!n.Lttod the propcr sa:~1-
pies of hio food for analysio under Article 1491, Pcnal'code,
Obviously he paid~his tax em? the Daznplessub;;lIttoQ snotthe
- required standards--otherwisethe Texas Qricultural Expcri-
nent Station vi0uldnot have i``od whir,the tap ata.tinSthe
protein analysin. Fllrther:noro, it ap&earD from yGUr state-
ment that corn ordtiarily tssts ebout *OS protein when wound
and that the sample co~plainod of tested .0793,,a variation
of only .OOO7. You state that the aillor had no intent to
defraud and had no Fntcnt to violate the.13~ ani that the
particularlot of corn fros which ths condcnmsd,sam~lcwas
taken ~8 out of the ordinary in that it had n~oreshuck and.
oob than Uaua'l: Y..
i:hiieit is purely a Latter of polloy foryour OS- ~. ..
fioc as to whathor.thisparty should be prosouuted or not,
It occurs to us that if you were Sittine 01~his jury and
found the facts to be as you hove given then to us that it
viGuldprobably be your duty under your oath to acqui.thim
Undor a proper,charE;aGiven uuder Article 4.1,Penal Code.
.
V:ehose our vi&s &IS be helpful ~.n'ti.i.a
matter
and ~'0will be pleased if nuch is the case.
.
Very truly yours
ATTCXWX GXXXRAL OP TSXAS
.~: Eu~cne AlvI3
Assia~tant _.
.-.