Case Information
*1 OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY GENERALOFTEXAS AUSTIN
Xonorable Xed mcDoaie1
County Attorney
ivlchltn county
WI&Its Falle, Texas
Dear Ylr:
tan:
be placed in a soparato .ssotion or article fron the one containing the dnfinltian of the Ol’i’anse, ox if they be not such as to be essential to the dcflni- tion of the offense, it will not be necessary to nagativo s;(1ch axioa~t:oao 3,s the indictment cimr&.rg such offenses. T!:is ru3.e seem unifordy rfdhcred to even though the exceptions roforred Co tmd in some formr onnctmnt, hoen *written into the enact- ing clause of the of'fense in SUCJI my ns to cause this court to hold it necessary for sa::e to be nega- Lived in the indictrcent ohm'yini; such offense. :;e feel impelled to say thnt if tttsre be possibly an cxcegtien to the rule ebove menlionod, it mast be ~-hen thn ,exae:,tion or olaission is of t5w vary @it of the offense, end t&en Qmh3 rroulsi Jtcve to ho nega- tived In tba in~dictmnt, no oatter* whera its looa- tion in the ctatute, and the La&isluturc, in such lotter oases could be pcvrerllass to ensct a ststuta txdcln;; It unneces~my to hcgctive such an cxoeption, cod thio as stated, ;&other such exce:!tion be in the article deffuin~: the offense or be in 8 separrite ar- ticle. In other isaras, if the thing foorbic:Ccn by the partioulor statute under consideretion could not be proved or the case could, not be s&de out vr.ithout proof of tt,o co-onllad exception or 03fsslen, thMl slid exceiAA.on would be cr necessary olemnt. of the and its existeace should be nefjr?tived in offense, the indiotnont.R
The holdfng in the B&or case is supported by that iu Sewell vs. State, 106 8.2. (2cl) 321.
The renl test semis to be, tbct if the cwseption be of such form ona Character ss that R pri%a fncie ctmt3 could be nude out against the acsusnd for the violation chhr~3d Ytithout proof thnti clt3fqly the oixission of ox- ‘of the oziis3l.on, or excc~tinn, ceation need not be r.lle::ed. Ii', on Lho othnr hand, the o::!in- is the t’~ry i:i.r:t of tim ci:'enso, am? a :mi.-;a 5j.b~ or oxcsption the2 proof Of Such OziB- facie case co~ltl nut be mile o!lt ':rit.liOUG 3Lon or e%Ca;,tioi;, than such o:;,;issicn or oxcaptton should be al- ).0@3C in t&o con~leint.
It ie our oplrrion tixt unC3r cfrcmstnncns se*; out kn t.!lG ~mkalon OI’ e,XCL2pt,i9il .tS Al?tldlO 666-X3 (U), S:l>&.PJi3icI!l 1, ;-un tha~t a ;wj,7?-l i’ncia cfls9 mi$;t not tm g13t of t.cm off0:1:x3, be :!!Odc out ~:.j.t!mut proof of SQCh u:~~:~.j.ssioi? CI’ Qxcct~t.j.Gn, LTr<! ttd, thokfom,, h cG,.?~,l.uiat o:1ri r:?ng 'en offunrie W:3dOI ti:i.s :r- ticlo fir.& ri:li,a.r :~.ubrlIv1tbiOll I. of Sr.:“.ci, need not have sat. forth tbc3& Such Gmis;ntoll3 art2 eXCe~tiOt:S.
IE support of this holdin:, \te cite, 2n cdditlou to horqt~~ore rororred to Ln thif3 opinion, the following 'r'np1or vs. S;tELO* 10G S.W. (aI) 1050 T!loaas VB. !~tlm?, 114 S.Yi. (2:a) 562 Parkor VB. :itato, 10G S.‘<i. (2d) 313
R.qpJ V6. stnte, 111 3.5. (26) 246
In support of ttiis couclwion we elso rcPer you to of tho T~XLLS I.lriuor Control Act, which roods 08 fol- "It shall not be ne&mwy for eny inform- tlon, complaint ok indictment tom negative.my ex- ception conteined in tiiia Act oonceiaini; my pro- h1bltad acts; providsd, howma, that my s?wh ex- ception nede horcin nay bo urged cs B defame by emy ynrson chnr@ by 8uch cowplaint; ~nformtioa, or indictmeut."