State v. Skinner

• Decision Date: 10 April 1978
• Docket Number: No. 60519,60519
• Citation: 358 So.2d 280
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. William SKINNER.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 280

358 So.2d 280

STATE of Louisiana v. William SKINNER.

No. 60519.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1978.

Edwin A. Stoutz, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., Louise S. Korns, Robert F. Barnard, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-appellant.

SANDERS, Chief Justice.

The State charged the defendant, William Skinner, with two counts of selling a vehicle without delivering the certificate of title to the purchaser, violations of LSA-R.S. 32:705. ¹ The defendant filed motions to quash, alleging the unconstitutionality of the statute under which he was charged. The trial court sustained the motions, ruling that LSA-R.S. 32:705 was "impractical" in requiring delivery of the certificate of title at the time of the sale.

The State appeals, supporting the statute's constitutionality.

LSA-R.S. 32:705 provides in pertinent part:

"On and after December 15, 1950, no person shall sell a vehicle without delivery to the purchaser thereof, whether such purchaser be a dealer or otherwise, a certificate of title issued under this Chapter in the name of the seller with such signed endorsement of sale and assignment thereon as may be necessary to show title in the purchaser; . . ."

The defendant's principle contention is that LSA-R.S. 32:705 is unconstitutionally vague in that it fails to alert a person of ordinary intelligence as to when the seller must deliver the certificate of title to the purchaser. He alleges that if the statute requires delivery at the time of sale, there is an inconsistency within the statutory scheme since LSA-R.S. 32:707 states that a purchaser must file an application for certificate of title with the Vehicle Commissioner within five days after delivery of the vehicle.

Every statute is presumed constitutional, and the burden of clearly establishing its unconstitutionality rests upon the party attacking it. State v. Everfield, La., 342 So.2d 648 (1977); State v. Newton, La., 328 So.2d 110 (1976). However, a statute is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his conduct is criminal. Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 96 S.Ct. 243, 46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975); State v. Booth, La., 347 So.2d 241 (1977); State v. de la Beckwith, La., 344 So.2d 360 (1977). In interpreting a statute its "(w)ords and phrases shall be read with their context and shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language." LSA-R.S. 1:3. In addition, courts should construe all statutes to give effect to the legislative intent. Bonnette v. Karst, 261 La. 850, 261 So.2d 589 (1972); Fruge v. Muffoletto, 242 La. 569, 137 So.2d 336 (1962); Johnson v. Sewerage District No. 2 of Parish of Caddo, 239 La. 840, 120 So.2d 262 (1960).

Applying these rules of construction, this Court holds LSA-R.S. 32:705 constitutional. As we construe it, the statute requires all sellers of vehicles to deliver the certificate of title which has been endorsed and assigned to the buyer at the time of the sale. This interpretation conforms with the main intention of the legislature: to protect buyers by preventing sellers from withholding title until full payment is made. This statute also protects persons holding security devices and the public by strengthening the security of vehicle titles. See 60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 42(1), p. 286.

LSA-R.S. 32:705 is not inconsistent with LSA-R.S. 32:707, as the defendant argues. The statutes refer to different certificates of title. LSA-R.S. 32:707 provides that, in five days after the delivery of the vehicle, the buyer must file an application for certificate of title with the Vehicle Commissioner. This is a new certificate listing the car in the buyer's name. LSA-R.S. 32:705 requires immediate transfer of a certificate of title standing in the name of the former owner, but which is endorsed and assigned to the buyer.

Secondly, the defendant submits the following argument in further support of his allegations of unconstitutionality:

"Where credit sales of automobiles are involved, the vendor has only two options available in order to protect his interest in the balance due. He can record a chattel mortgage on the automobile and thus obtain a security device, or he can hold onto the title certificate until the balance is paid. In order to obtain the chattel mortgage, the vendor must advance the sales tax and transfer fees even though he has no legal obligation to the State to collect these taxes and fees. Thus, he is deprived of his property without benefit of due process in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Further, he is made an unwilling agent for the State in those instances where the sale is made on credit and he must advance the necessary fees, which is repugnant to the equal protection clause."

In essence, this contention attacks the validity of the chattel mortgage law. Its validity is irrelevant to the present prosecution for failure to deliver a certificate of title at the time of the sale. Moreover, the defendant did not obtain a chattel mortgage on either vehicle which was sold without delivery of title. As he did not "advance the sales tax and transfer fees," he has not been deprived of any property, and thus has no viable complaint.

Finally, he avers that LSA-R.S. 32:705 violates equal protection guarantees because at least 50% of used car salesmen who deal in credit sales violate the statute, but there has never been any case reported under that statute in its 26-year life. Basically, he contends that he has been singled out for prosecution.

In State v. Anderson, 206 La. 986, 20 So.2d 288 (1944), addressing a similar contention, we quoted the United States Supreme Court as follows:

" 'The unlawful administration by state officers of a state statute fair on its face, resulting in its unequal application to those who are entitled to be treated alike, is not a denial of equal protection unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intention or purposeful discrimination. This may appear on the face of the action taken with respect to a particular class or person, or it may only be shown by extrinsic evidence showing a discriminatory design to favor one individual or class over another not to be inferred from the action itself. But a discriminatory purpose is not presumed, there must be a showing of "clear and intentional discrimination ".' " (Citations deleted.) Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 64 S.Ct. 397, 88 L.Ed. 497 (1943).

At the hearing on the motion, the defendant called two witnesses who worked for automobile title companies. One testified that used car sellers followed LSA-R.S. 32:705 only 50% of the time, and the other testified that sellers did not universally comply with it.

This evidence is insufficient to prove "clear and intentional discrimination" on the part of the State in enforcement of the statute. See Pier I Imports, Inc. v. Pitcher, La.App., 270 So.2d 228 (1972).

In conclusion, we hold that LSA-R.S. 32:705 is constitutional. Hence, the district court erred in sustaining the defendant's motions to quash.

For the reasons assigned, the ruling of the district court is reversed, the motions to quash are overruled, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings according to law and consistent with the views herein expressed.

DENNIS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.

CALOGERO, J., dissents for reasons assigned by DENNIS, J.

DENNIS, Justice, dissenting.

The majority opinion fails to discuss the more important issue presented, viz., whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague because it does not state definitely when the certificate of title must be delivered.

La.R.S. 32:705, in pertinent part, provides that ". . . no person shall sell a vehicle without delivery to the purchaser thereof . . . a certificate of title . . . ."

Article I, Section 13 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 provides that an accused in a criminal prosecution "shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him." This Court, in State v. Mitchell, 319 So.2d 357 (La.1975), held that the Louisiana constitutional guarantee of due process of law is synonymous with the federal constitutional requirement of statutory definiteness set forth by the Supreme Court in United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617, 74 S.Ct. 808, 812, 98 L.Ed. 989 (1954):

"The constitutional requirement of definiteness is violated by a criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute. The underlying principle is that no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed."

See also, Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977); Rose v. Locke, 423 U.S. 48, 96 S.Ct. 243, 46 L.Ed.2d 185 (1975).

In Connick v. Lucky Pierre's, 331 So.2d 431, 434 (La.1976), we discussed the characteristics of a statute which is void for vagueness:

"The fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Section 2 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, command that words and phrases used in statutes be not so vague and indefinite that any 'penalty' prescribed for their violation constitutes the taking of liberty or property without due process of law. Wright v....