Wright v. State, s. 43980
| Decision Date | 14 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | 43984,Nos. 43980,s. 43980 |
| Parties | Rodger WRIGHT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Erhard, Cox & Ruebel by Daniel W. Shieder, Jr., Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle, Harry J., Schulz, Jr., W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., Edgar A. Mason and James S. Moss, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
These are appeals from two convictions for sale of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). The punishment was assessed by the court at four years in each case to run concurrently.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged.
Appellant complains solely that the trial court erred in not granting his motion to quash the indictment on the grounds that the Dangerous Drug statute is unconstitutional. The appellant contends that H.B. No. 142, Chapter 437, Acts of 61st Legislature, Regular Session, 1969, violates Article 3, Section 35 of the Constitution of the State of Texas, Vernon's Ann.St. This amendment to the 'Texas Dangerous Drug Law' was written among other reasons
'(T)o include lysergic acid diethylamide and other hallucinogens in the list defining 'dangerous drugs' and specifying their possession and sale to be an unlawful act and providing penalties; * * *.'
This replaces S.B. No. 17, Chapter 720, Acts of 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 1967, which was declared unconstitutional by this Court in White v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 440 S.W.2d 660, for violating Article 3, Section 35 of the Constitution of the State of Texas. In White we held that the caption or title in the amendatory act did not apprise the legislature and public of drastic changes in penalties included in the subject matter of the act. The rationale of this Court was that the
'(R)eason underlying this constitutional requirement is to advise the Legislature and the people of the nature of each particular bill so as to prevent the insertion of obnoxious clauses which might otherwise be engrafted on it and become law.'
Often, we noted, 'The caption or title of an act, * * * is * * * the only part of the bill read by busy members of the legislature' and it should give them and the people 'a ready and reasonably accurate means of knowledge of the contents of bills.'
Appellant contends that no fair warning is given concerning the subject matter of the amendatory act because the caption states it is amending Article 726d, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes rather than Vernon's Texas Penal Code.
In Katz v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 231, 54 S.W.2d 130, this Court held an amendatory act violative of Article 3, Section 35, supra, because the caption purported only to amend Section 14, Article 7047 of the Revised Civil Statutes of 1925 whereas the act itself amended Section 15. This was unconstitutional as containing legislation on matter not expressed in the title. Fair notice was not thereby given.
The appellant contends similar unconstitutionality in this case since the title refers to a Civil statute and cannot give fair warning of a change in a Criminal statute. The contention in this case is without merit. The caption has not one but three references to the act to be amended. The amended act is first called the 'Texas Dangerous Drug Law;' secondly, it is called Sections 2, 3, 6, 14 and 15, Chapter 425, Acts of the 56th Legislature, Regular Session, 1959; and finally, it is called Article 726d, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. The latter reference is placed in parentheses and the entire tone of the remainder of the caption is that of an amendment of a criminal not a civil statute.
The Legislature amended its official acts. Vernon's Statutes are not the official publication of our statutes. Hence, the reference to a civil statute was surplusage and in the circumstances neither seriously misleading nor a denial of fair warning.
Next, the appellant challenges the constitutionality of the statute as giving no fair warning in the caption of any intent to make a drastic and radical change in the penalty provisions of the original act. Such an error was the basis of the decision in White v. State, supra. In the 1967 amendment, however, the caption gave no notice of any special penalties for the acts made unlawful by the amendment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Giles
...the purpose of the act was, among other things, to add 'a new Article', (and) fix 'a penalty' . . ..' Id., at 242. Finally, in Wright v. State, 471 S.W.2d 407, we upheld a 1967 amendment to the Dangerous Drug Act, overruling the contention that the caption was insufficient. White v. State, ......
-
Peak v. State, 49625
...were to be included in the amendatory act and that they would vary the former uniform penalty of the 1959 Act. Wright v. State, 471 S.W.2d 407, 409 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). Appellant contends that the court erred in failing to grant a challenge for cause on a prospective juror. Only a part of the......
-
Reeves v. State, 45433
...such drugs are produced, handled, Sold, or prescribed by them.' (Emphasis added.) This same contention was overruled recently in Wright v. State, 471 S.W.2d 407, wherein we 'Appellant contends that the indictment charges him with 'sale' of a dangerous drug and the amendatory act in Section ......
-
Stein v. State
...This Court concluded that the trial court erred in overruling the appellant's motion to quash the indictment. In Wright v. State, 471 S.W.2d 407 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), this Court upheld a 1969 amendment by the 61st Legislature to the Dangerous Drug Act to replace the amendment ruled unconstitut......