United States v. Dotterweich, 5

Decision Date22 November 1943
Docket NumberNo. 5,5
PartiesUNITED STATES v. DOTTERWEICH
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Charles Fahy, Sol. Gen., of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Mr. Samuel M. Fleischman, of Buffalo, N.Y., for respondent.

Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was a prosecution begun by two informations, consolidated for trial, charging Buffalo Pharmacal Company, Inc., and Dotterweich, its president and general manager, with violations of the Act of Congress of June 25, 1938, c. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301—392, 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 301—392, known as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The Company, a jobber in drugs, purchased them from their manufacturers and shipped them, repacked under its own label, in interstate commerce. (No question is raised in this case regarding the implications that may properly arise when, although the manufacturer gives the jobber a guaranty, the latter through his own label makes representations.) The informations were based on § 301 of that Act, 21 U.S.C. § 331, 21 U.S.C.A. § 331, paragraph (a) of which prohibits 'The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any * * * drug * * * that is adulterated or misbranded'. 'Any person' violating this provision is, by paragraph (a) of § 303, 21 U.S.C. § 333, 21 U.S.C.A. § 333, made 'guilty of a misdemeanor'. Three counts went to the jury—two, for shipping misbranded drugs in interstate commerce, and a third, for so shipping an adulterated drug. The jury disagreed as to the corporation and found Dotterweich guilty on all three counts. We start with the finding of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the evidence was adequate to support the verdict of adulteration and misbranding. 131 F.2d 500, 502.

Two other questions which the Circuit Court of Appeals decided against Dotterweich call only for summary disposition to clear the path for the main question before us. He invoked § 305 of the Act requiring the Administrator, before reporting a violation for prosecution by a United States attorney, to give the suspect an 'opportunity to present his views'. We agree with the Circuit Court of Appeals that the giving of such an opportunity, which was not accorded to Dotterweich, is not a prerequisite to prosecution. This Court so held in United States v. Morgan, 222 U.S. 274, 32 S.Ct. 81, 56 L.Ed. 198, in construing the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, 34 Stat. 768, 21 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq. and the legislative history to which the court below called attention abundantly proves that Congress, in the changed phraseology of 1938, did not intend to introduce a change of substance. 83 Cong.Rec. 7792-94. Equally baseless is the claim of Dotterweich that, having failed to find the corporation guilty, the jury could not find him guilty. Whether the jury's verdict was the result of carelessness or compromise or a belief that the responsible individual should suffer the penalty instead of merely increasing, as it were, the cost of running the business of the corporation, is immaterial. Juries may indulge in precisely such motives or vagaries. Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356, 80 A.L.R. 161.

And so we are brought to our real problem. The Circuit Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, reversed the conviction on the ground that only the corporation was the 'person' subject to prosecution unless, perchance, Buffalo Pharmacal was a counterfeit corporation serving as a screen for Dotterweich. On that issue, after rehearing, it remanded the cause for a new trial. We then brought the case here, on the Government's petition for certiorari, 318 U.S. 753, 63 S.Ct. 852, 87 L.Ed. 1128, because this construction raised questions of importance in the enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The court below drew its conclusion not from the provisions defining the offenses on which this prosecution was based (§§ 301(a) and 303(a), but from the terms of § 303(c). That section affords immunity from prosecution if certain conditions are satisfied. The condition relevant to this case is a guaranty from the seller of the innocence of his product. So far as here relevant, the provision for an immunizing guaranty is as follows:

'No person shall be subject to the penalties of subsection (a) of this section * * * (2) for having violated section 301(a) or (d), if he establishes a guaranty or undertaking signed by, and containing the name and address of, the person residing in the United States from whom he received in good faith the article, to the effect, in case of an alleged violation of section 301(a), that such article is not adulterated or misbranded, within the meaning of this Act, designating this Act * * *.'

This Circuit Court of Appeals found it 'difficult to believe that Congress expected anyone except the principal to get such a guaranty, or to make the guilt of an agent depend upon whether his employer had gotten one.' 131 F.2d 500, 503. And so it cut down the scope of the penalizing provisions of the Act to the restrictive view, as a matter of language and policy, it took of the relieving effect of a guaranty.

The guaranty clause cannot be read in isolation. The Food and Drugs Act of 1906 was an exertion by Congress of its power to keep impure and adulterated food and drugs out of the channels of commerce. By the Act of 1938, Congress extended the range of its control over illicit and noxious articles and stiffened the penalties for disobedience. The purposes of this legislation thus touch phases of the lives and health of people which, in the circumstances of modern industrialism, are largely beyond self-protection. Regard for these purposes should infuse construction of the legislation if it is to be treated as a working instrument of government and not merely as a collection of English words. See Hipolite Egg Co. v. United States, 220 U.S. 45, 57, 31 S.Ct. 364, 367, 55 L.Ed. 364, and McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U.S. 115, 128, 33 S.Ct. 431, 433, 57 L.Ed. 754, 47 L.R.A.,N.S., 984, Ann.Cas.1915A, 39. The prosecution to which Dotterweich was subjected is based on a now familiar type of legislation whereby penalties serve as effective means of regulation. Such legislation dispenses with the conventional requirement for criminal conduct—awareness of some wrongdoing. In the interest of the larger good it puts the burden of acting at hazard upon a person otherwise innocent but standing in responsible relation to a public danger. United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604. And so it is clear that shipments like those now in issue are 'punished by the statute if the article is misbranded (or adulterated), and that the article may be misbranded (or adulterated) without any conscious fraud at all. It was natural enough to throw this risk on shippers with regard to the identity of their wares * * *.' United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488, 497, 498, 31 S.Ct. 627, 628, 55 L.Ed. 823.

The statute (§ 303) makes 'any person' who violates § 301(a) guilty of a 'misdemeanor'. It specifically defines 'person' to include 'corporation'. § 201(e). But the only way in which a corporation can act is through the individuals who act on its behalf. New York Central & H.R.R.R Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481, 29 S.Ct. 304, 53 L.Ed. 613. And the historic conception of a 'misdemeanor' makes all those responsible for it equally guilty, United States v. Mills, 7 Pet. 138, 141, 8 L.Ed. 636, a doctrine given general application in § 332 of the Penal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 550, 18 U.S.C.A. § 550. If, then, Dotterweich is not subject to the Act, it must be solely on the ground that individuals are immune when the 'person' who violates § 301(a) is a corporation, although from the point of view of action the individuals are the corporation. As a matter of legal development, it has taken time to establish criminal liability also for a corporation and not merely for its agents. See New York Central & H.R.R. Co. v. United States, supra. The history of federal food and drug legislation is a good illustration of the elaborate phrasing that was in earlier days deemed necessary to fasten criminal liability on corporations. Section 12 of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906, 21 U.S.C.A. § 4, provided that, 'the act, omission, or failure of any officer, agent, or other person acting for or employed by any corporation, company, society, or association, within the scope of his employment or office, shall in every case be also deemed to be the act, omission, or failure of such corporation, company, society, or association as well as that of the person.' By 1938, legal understanding and practice had rendered such statement of the obvious superfluous. Deletion of words—in the interest of brevity and good draftsmanship1 superfluous for holding a corporation criminally liable can hardly be found ground for relieving from such liability the individual agents of the corporation. To hold that the Act of 1938 freed all individuals, except when proprietors, from the culpability under which the earlier legislation had placed them is to defeat the very object of the new Act. Nothing is clearer than that the later legislation was designed to enlarge and stiffen the penal net and not to narrow and loosen it. This purpose was unequivocally avowed by the two committees which reported the bills to the Congress. The House Committee reported that the Act 'seeks to set up effective provisions against abuses of consumer welfare growing out of inadequacies in the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906'. (H. Rep. No. 2139, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., p. 1.) And the Senate Committee explicitly pointed out that the new legislation 'must not weaken the existing laws', but on the contrary 'it must strengthen and extend that law's protection of the consumer.' (S. Rep. No. 152, 75th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 1.) If the 1938 Act were construed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
699 cases
  • State v. Montanez, No. 17087.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • April 18, 2006
    ...1869) (No. 15,318)]; instead, all parties to a misdemeanor, whatever their roles, were principals. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 281 [64 S.Ct. 134, 88 L.Ed. 48] (1943); 1 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law [(14th Ed.1978) § 33, pp. "Because at early common law all parties to a ......
  • United States v. Corbin Farm Service
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • January 23, 1978
    ...present time; and (8) defendants' motions for separate trials are granted. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 E. g., United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 281, 64 S.Ct. 134, 136, 88 L.Ed. 48 (1943) (legislation imposing penalties as a means to enforce regulatory purposes "dispenses with the conventi......
  • People v. Skinner
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • September 16, 1985
    ... ...         "5. Persons who committed the act charged, without being conscious thereof; ... Bishop finds full support in the following adjudged cases. -- United States vs. Pearce, 2 McLean, p. 14; Weaver vs. Ward, Hob., p. 134; Rex ... Dotterweich (1943) 320 U.S. 277, 280-281, 64 S.Ct. 134, 136-137, 88 L.Ed. 48), the ... ...
  • State v. Anderson, AC 35432
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • June 30, 2015
    ...that pursuant to United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 105 S. Ct. 471, 83 L. Ed. 2d 461 (1984),14 and United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 64 S. Ct. 134, 88 L. Ed. 48 (1943),15 the District Court should have rendered a judgment of acquittal. United States v. Shippley, supra, 690 F.3d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 firm's commentaries
60 books & journal articles
  • Overcriminalization and the Endangered Species Act: Mens Rea and Criminal Convictions for Take
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 46-6, June 2016
    • June 1, 2016
    ...where the harm can be avoided through reasonable care). 57. See Staples , 511 U.S. at 607 (quoting United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 281 (1943)); Labert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 229-30 (1957); cf . United States v. International Minerals & Chem. Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 564-65 (19......
  • Environmental Criminal Enforcement
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Environmental litigation: law and strategy
    • June 23, 2009
    ...§ 309(c)(6), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(6) (2000 & Supp. V 2006). 99. Clean Air Act § 113, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(6) (2000 & Supp. V 2006). 100. 320 U.S. 277, 284–85 (1943). 101. 421 U.S. 658, 671–73 (1975). 102. See United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 280 (1943); United States v. Park, 421 U......
  • Environmental Crimes
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...Fourth and Fifth Circuits require that off‌icers possess actual knowledge of the facts constituting 42. See United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 284 (1943) (“The offense [selling adulterated or misbranded drugs] is committed . . . by all who do have such a responsible share in the fu......
  • Susan R. Klein & Ingrid B. Grobey, Debunking Claims of Over-federalization of Criminal Law
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 62-1, 2012
    • Invalid date
    ...States v. Int’l Minerals & Chem. Corp., 402 U.S. 558 (1971); United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250 (1922).United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943).Id.247 Id. at 284–85.The Dotterweich Court relied on United States v. Balint,248 a 1922 case where the Court affirmed a felony convicti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT