44 489 United States v. Park 8212 215 18 8212 19, 1975, No. 74
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BURGER |
| Citation | 421 U.S. 658,44 L. Ed. 2d 489,95 S.Ct. 1903 |
| Decision Date | 09 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74 |
| Parties | . 44 L.Ed.2d 489 UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. John R. PARK. —215. Argued March 18—19, 1975 |
v.
John R. PARK.
Syllabus
Acme Markets, Inc., a large national food chain, and respondent, its president, were charged with violating § 301(k) of the Federal Food, drug, and Cosmetic Act (Act) in an information alleging that they had caused interstate food shipments being held in Acme's Baltimore warehouse to be exposed to rodent contamination. Acme, but not respondent, pleaded guilty. At his trial respondent conceded that providing sanitary conditions for food offered for sale to the public was something that he was 'responsible for in the entire operation of the company,' and that it was one of the many phases of the company that he assigned to 'dependable subordinates.' Evidence was admitted over respondent's objection that he had received a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) letter in 1970 concerning insanitary conditions at Acme's Philadelphia warehouse. Respondent conceded that the same individuals were largely responsible for sanitation in both Baltimore and Philadelphia, and that as Acme's president he was responsible for any result that occurred in the company. The trial court, inter alia, instructed the jury that although respondent need not have personally participated in the situation, he must have had 'a responsible relationship to the issue.' Respondent was convicted, but the Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that although this Court's decision in United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 64 S.Ct. 134, 88 L.Ed. 48, had construed the statutory provisions under which respondent had been tried to dispense with the traditional element of "awareness of some wrongdoing," the Court had not construed them as dispensing with the element of 'wrongful action.' The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court's instructions 'might well have left the jury with the erroneous impression that (respondent) could be found guilty in the absence of 'wrongful action' on his part,' and that proof of that element was required by due process. The court also held that the admission in evidence of the 1970 FDA warning to respondent was reversible error. Held:
1. The Act imposes upon persons exercising authority and
Page 659
supervisory responsibility reposed in them by a business organization not only a positive duty to seek out and remedy violations but also, and primarily, a duty to implement measures that will insure that violations will not occur, United States v. Dotterweich, supra; in order to make food distributors 'the strictest censors of their merchandise,' Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 152, 80 S.Ct. 215, 218, 4 L.Ed.2d 205 the Act punishes 'neglect where the law requires care, or inaction where it imposes a duty.' Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 255, 72 S.Ct. 240, 246, 96 L.Ed. 288. Pp. 670-673.
2. Viewed as a whole and in context, the trial court's instructions were not misleading and provided a proper guide for the jury's determination. The charge adequately focused on the issue of respondent's authority respecting the conditions that formed the basis of the alleged violations, fairly advising the jury that to find guilt it must find that respondent 'had a responsible relation to the situation'; that the 'situation' was the condition of the warehouse; and that by virtue of his position he had 'authority and responsibility' to deal therewith. Pp. 676-678.
3. The admission of testimony concerning the 1970 FDA warning was proper rebuttal evidence to respondent's defense that he had justifiably relied upon subordinates to handle sanitation matters. Pp. 676-678.
499 F.2d 839, reversed.
Allan A. Tuttle, Raleigh, N.C., for petitioner.
Gregory M. Harvey, Philadelphia Pa., for respondent.
Page 660
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to consider whether the jury instructions in the prosecution of a corporate officer under § 301(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 52 Stat. 1042, as amended, 21 U.S.C. § 331(k), were appropriate under United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 64 S.Ct. 134, 88 L.Ed. 48 (1943).
Acme Markets, Inc., is a national retail food chain with approximately 36,000 employees, 874 retail outlets, 12 general warehouses, and four special warehouses. Its headquarters, including the office of the president, respondent Park, who is chief executive officer of the corporation, are located in Philadelphia, Pa. In a five-count information filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the Government charged Acme and respondent with violations of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Each count of the information alleged that the defendants had received food that had been shipped in interstate commerce and that, while the food was being held for sale in Acme's Baltimore warehouse following shipment in interstate commerce, they caused it to be held in a building accessible to rodents and to be exposed to contamination by rodents. These acts were alleged to have resulted in the food's being adulterated within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. §§ 342(a)(3) and (4), 1 in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 331(k).2
Page 661
Acme pleaded guilty to each count of the information. Respondent pleaded not guilty. The evidence at trial3 demonstrated that in April 1970 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised respondent by letter of insanitary conditions in Acme's Philadelphia warehouse. In 1971 the FDA found that similar conditions existed in the firm's Baltimore warehouse. An FDA consumer safety officer testified concerning evidence of rodent infestation and other insanitary conditions discovered during a 12-day inspection of the Baltimore warehouse in November and December 1971.4 He also related that a
Page 662
second inspection of the warehouse had been conducted in March 1972.5 On that occasion the inspectors found that there had been improvement in the sanitary conditions, but that 'there was still evidence of rodent activity in the building and in the warehouses and we found some rodent-contaminated lots of food items.' App. 23.
The Government also presented testimony by the Chief of Compliance of the FDA's Baltimore office, who informed respondent by letter of the conditions at the Baltimore warehouse after the first inspection.6 There was testimony by Acme's Baltimore division vice president, who had responded to the letter on behalf of Acme and respondent and who described the steps taken to remedy the insanitary conditions discovered by both inspections. The Government's final witness, Acme's vice president for legal affairs and assistant secretary, identi-
Page 663
fied respondent as the president and chief executive officer of the company and read a bylaw prescribing the duties of the chief executive officer. 7 He testified that respondent functioned by delegating 'normal operating duties,' including sanitation, but that he retained 'certain things, which are the big, broad, principles of the operation of the company,' and had 'the responsibility of seeing that they all work together.' Id., at 41.
At the close of the Government's case in chief, respondent moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that 'the evidence in chief has shown that Mr. Park is not personally concerned in this Food and Drug violation. The trial judge denied the motion, stating that United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 64 S.Ct. 134, 88 L.Ed. 48 (1943), was controlling.
Respondent was the only defense witness. He testified that, although all of Acme's employees were in a sense under his general direction, the company had an 'organizational structure for responsiblities for certain functions' according to which different phases of its operation were 'assigned to individuals who, in turn, have staff and departments under them.' He identified those individuals responsible for sanitation, and related that upon receipt of the January 1972 FDA letter, he had conferred with the vice president for legal affairs,
Page 664
who informed him that the Baltimore division vice president 'was investigating the situation immediately and would be taking corrective action and would be preparing a summary of the corrective action to reply to the letter.' Respondent stated that he did not 'believe there was anything (he) could have done more constructively than what (he) found was being done.' App. 43—47.
On cross-examination, respondent conceded that providing sanitary conditions for food offered for sale to the public was something that he was 'responsible for in the entire operation of the company,' and he stated that it was one of many phases of the company that he assigned to 'dependable subordinates.' Respondent was asked about and, over the objections of his counsel, admitted receiving, the April 1970 letter addressed to him from the FDA regarding insanitary conditions at Acme's Philadelphia warehouse.8 He acknowledged that, with the exception of the division vice president, the same individuals had responsibility for sanitation in both Baltimore and Philadelphia. Finally, in response to questions concerning the Philadelphia and Baltimore incidents, respondent admitted that the Baltimore problem indicated the system for handling sanitation 'wasn't
Page 665
dworking perfectly' and that as Acme's chief executive officer he was responsible for 'any result which occurs in our company.' Id., at 48—55.
At the close of the evidence, respondent's renewed motion for a judgment of acquittal was denied. The relevant portion of the trial judge's instructions to the jury challenged by respondent is set out in the margin.9 Respondent's counsel objected to the instructions on the ground that they failed fairly to reflect our decision in United States v. Dotterweich, supra, and to define "responsible relationship." The trial judge over-
Page 666
ruled the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Part II
...that could be imposed on a manufacturer under the act (citing United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1944) and United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975)). To the extent that the comment asserts that the records access established in this final rule constitutes an improper search and s......
-
Food for human consumption:
Current good manufacturing practice
Dietary supplements; manufacturing, packaging, labeling, or holding operations,
...that could be imposed on a manufacturer under the act (citing United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1944) and United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975)). To the extent that the comment asserts that the records access established in this final rule constitutes an improper search and s......
-
U.S. v. Blue Ribbon Smoked Fish, Inc., No. CV-01-3887 (CPS).
...the purity of its food is so great as to warrant the imposition of the highest standard of care on distributors." United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 671, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Food processing companies, and not consumers, ar......
-
Stillwater of Crown Point Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Kovich, Cause No. 2:09–CV–157–PRC.
...and authority either to prevent in the first instance, or promptly to correct, the violation complained of, and that he failed to do so.” 421 U.S. 658, 673–74, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975). Like the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) specifically provides for ......
-
U.S. v. Blue Ribbon Smoked Fish, Inc., No. CV-01-3887 (CPS).
...the purity of its food is so great as to warrant the imposition of the highest standard of care on distributors." United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 671, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Food processing companies, and not consumers, ar......
-
Stillwater of Crown Point Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Kovich, Cause No. 2:09–CV–157–PRC.
...and authority either to prevent in the first instance, or promptly to correct, the violation complained of, and that he failed to do so.” 421 U.S. 658, 673–74, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 (1975). Like the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) specifically provides for ......
-
Alejandrez v. Hedgpeth, Case No.: 1:12-cv-00190-AWI-JLT
...jury charge and in the context of the entire trial. See Naughten, 414 U.S. at 145-147(consider charge as whole); United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 675 (1975)(consider context of whole trial). The court must then decide whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the ch......
-
Mackenzie v. Portuondo, Nos. 99-CV-4659 ADS, 99-CV-4660, 99-CV-4661.
...the jury took into its deliberations and applied." Chalmers v. Mitchell, 73 F.3d 1262, 1267 (2d Cir.1996) (citing United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 674, 95 S.Ct. 1903, 1912-13, 44 L.Ed.2d 489 After reviewing the charge, the Court finds that the "burden of proof" instruction did not instr......
-
'Ruan v. United States' Reinforces Importance Of Mens Rea In Federal Criminal Law
...to "the good sense of prosecutors, the wise guidance of trial judges, and the ultimate judgment of juries." United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 669 (1975) (quoting United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 285 (1943)). Such willingness to trust a prosecutor's "good sense" is hardly the c......
-
Criminal Liability Of Pharmaceutical Executives Under The Controlled Substances Act
...Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 130 (1975). 18. James T. O'Reilly,Food and Drug Administration§ 8.1, 8.2 (2d ed. 2005). 19. SeeUnited States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 672-73 (1975) (criminal liability under the FDCA does not require "awareness of some wrongdoing" or "conscious 20. United States v. Doud, ......
-
Transatlantic Legal-Regulatory Update: Live from the Heart of Silicon Valley
...to prevent in the first instance, or promptly to correct, the violation complained of” and fails to do soRule United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975)• Mr. Park was President and CEO of Acme Markets, Inc., a national retail food chain with 36,000 employees, 874 locations, 16 warehouses• F......
-
The Volkswagen Air Pollution Emissions Litigation
...a Successful Internal Environmental Investigation , 6 Envtl. Law. 673 (2000). 113. 320 U.S. 277 (1943). 114. 21 U.S.C. §§301 et seq . 115. 421 U.S. 658 (1975). 116. Id. at 670-73. 117. See generally Susan F. Mandiberg, Moral Issues in Environmental Crime , 7 Fordham Envtl. L.J. 881 (1996); ......
-
Table of authorities
...20549 (E.D. Pa. 1980) ......................................................................................... 241 United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975) ................................................................ 738 United States v. Paul Tudor Jones 11, No. S-90-0216 (D. Md. May......
-
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
...which the statute outlaws. . . .”); United States v. DeCoster, 828 F.3d 626, 632 (8th Cir. 2016) (citing United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658, 673–74 (1975)) (stating under the responsible corporate officer doctrine, individuals in a corporation who have responsibility and authority to prev......
-
Historical Perspectives on Environmental Management
...(10th Cir. 1991); United States v. Hayes Int’l Corp., 786 F.2d 1499, 1503, 16 ELR 20717 (11th Cir. 1986). 68. See United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975); United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943), cited in George Van Cleve, The Changing Intersection of Environmental Auditing, En......