Case Title: Ex Parte McCurley

Citation: 390 So. 2d 25

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1980-08-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
390 So. 2d 25 (1980)
Ex parte Lula Mae McCURLEY.
(Re: Lula Mae McCurley, alias v. State of Alabama).
79-485.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
August 8, 1980.
*26 Richard D. Horne of Hess, Atchison & Stout, Mobile, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Sarah Kathryn Farnell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
BEATTY, Justice.
Certiorari was granted to consider the constitutionality of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act, Code of 1975, §§ 20-2-1 et seq.[1] Specifically, the petitioner contends that the Act must fall for either of two reasons: (1) It is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, and (2) in its application to the petitioner it failed to accord with the notice requirements of due process of law.
The particular provisions questioned by the petitioner are contained in § 20-2-20:
*27 (b) After considering the factors enumerated in subsection (a) of this section, the state board of health shall make findings with respect thereto and issue a rule controlling the substance if it finds the substance has a potential for abuse. [Emphasis added.]
. . . . . .
We agree with the Court of Criminal Appeals in its assessment of the constitutional validity of §§ (a) and (b), finding that these statutory terms do not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
Article IV, Section 43 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 provides:
Article IV, Section 44, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 states that:
The application of these provisions to other instrumentalities has been the subject of litigation in other cases. One of these was State v. Vaughan, 30 Ala.App. 201, 4 So. 2d 5; cert. den. 241 Ala. 628, 4 So. 2d 9 (1941), concerning a regulation promulgated by the Commissioner of Conservation under the authority of the legislation creating the State Conservation Department. That legislation had authorized the Commissioner to "make reasonable rules and regulations ... for the best interest of the conservation, protection and propagation of ... fish ... which rules and regulations shall have the force and effect of law...." Under that statutory authority the Commissioner published the following rule:
This Court held that this rule went beyond the power of the Commissioner and constituted an unlawful exercise of legislative power. In reaching that decision this Court recognized the absence of any "universal formula for determining in all cases the power which must be exercised by the legislative body itself, each case" being "controlled by the application of the general principle to a given situation." Ibid. at 30 Ala.App. 204, 4 So. 2d 5. It should be noted at this point that in Vaughan the Commissioner's "rule" was his own unilateral prohibition. As will be shown, that circumstance is different from the situation here, for under this statute the legislature itself has asserted the complained-about proscription.
Whether or not a nondelegable legislative power to constitute criminal conduct has been granted to the State Board of Health *28 by § 20-2-20 has not heretofore been considered by this Court, but the issue was before the Court of Criminal Appeals in Cassell v. State, 55 Ala.App. 502, 317 So. 2d 348 (1975). It was contended in that case, as in this, that the defendant had been indicted for an offense promulgated by a Board of Health regulation (by having placed methaqualone on the controlled list) and not by a legislative act as required by Sections 42 and 43 of the Constitution. In upholding the Act under this attack that Court reviewed a number of decisions recognizing the doctrine of legislative delegation of power, and quoted from State v. McCarty, 5 Ala.App. 212, 59 So. 543 (1912):
The McCarty case involved a legislative act creating a State Live Stock Sanitary Board which was authorized to make rules governing, inter alia, the disposition of livestock which might be quarantined. It required livestock owners to obey those rules pertaining to cleaning and disinfecting infected livestock and quarantined places. The Act continued by providing punishment to one for "failing or refusing, without just cause and legal excuse, to cleanse and disinfect any infested or infected place in which live stock are kept, when requested or directed by the ... Board ...." In commenting upon the power of the legislature as manifested in that Act, the Court stated, at 5 Ala.App. 217-18, 59 So. 543:
This paragraph was concluded with this pertinent sentence:
Commenting upon the delegation issue, the Court added:
These principles are applicable in the case before us, and in their application we must be guided by the presumption of constitutionality accorded to legislative acts and our duty to sustain them unless we are convinced beyond reasonable doubt of their unconstitutionality. Riley v. Bradley, 252 Ala. 282, 41 So. 2d 641 (1949); Taylor v. Hudson, 265 Ala. 541, 93 So. 2d 143 (1957). Consonant with that duty, a statute which is susceptible to two interpretations, one of which would be constitutional, will be given the constitutional interpretation. Piggly-Wiggly of Jacksonville, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, Ala., 336 So. 2d 1078 (1976); Sanders v. State, 42 Ala.App. 67, 152 So. 2d 439 (1963); Ala. State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 246 Ala. 1, 18 So. 2d 810 (1944).
The petitioner maintains that § 20-2-20 unlawfully delegates to the Board of Health the legislative authority to establish a criminal offense because that section authorizes the Board to add, delete or reschedule substances, either through its own action or by adoption under federal law. We respectfully disagree with that interpretation. As this Court recognized in Boswell v. State, 290 Ala. 349, 276 So. 2d 592 (1973), the Act is divided into five parts: Definitions; Standards and Schedules; Regulation of Manufacture, Distribution and Dispensing of Controlled Substances; Offenses and Penalties; and Enforcement and Administrative Provisions. With the exception of that part on definitions, all of these would fall under the general category of "administration" or execution of the Act. It is significant that a separate article (Article 4) pertains to offenses and penalties. In other words, following the placing of a substance in a controlled schedule, the legislature itself has stated that to possess, sell, furnish, give away, obtain, etc., such conduct will constitute an offense. The Board determines that the substance should be controlled. Thus it performs its administrative function. But it is the legislative will, not the Board's, which states that, following a controlled classification, certain conduct related to that controlled substance constitutes a public offense. The punishment under the Act does not ensue from the mere scheduling, but ensues from the affirmative legislative mandate declaring certain conduct related to that substance a crime. Thus there is no unlawful delegation of legislative power to the Board, even though the section of the Act on offenses may not come into play until the Board has made an administrative decision to schedule a substance. This interpretation of the Act is consistent with the power of the legislature to determine the criminal laws, Woco Pep Co. of Montgomery v. City of Montgomery, 213 Ala. 452, 105 So. 2d 214 (1925), and with our duty to adopt that interpretation which accords constitutionality to the legislative will, McAdory, supra.
We are not unmindful of the decisions of other jurisdictions to the contrary, i.e., Howell v. State, Miss., 300 So. 2d 774 (1974); State v. Gallion, Utah, 572 P.2d 683 (1977); Sundberg v. State, 234 Ga. 482, 216 S.E.2d 332 (1975); State v. Rodriguez, La., 379 So. 2d 1084 (1980), and State v. Johnson, S.D., 173 N.W.2d 894 (1970). But we must point out that some of those decisions either contained dissenting opinions concurring in the principles we have followed, are distinguishable on the wording of the pertinent statutes, or contain statutory interpretations different from our own. Additionally, there are cases from other jurisdictions in accord with our views, e.g., State v. Lisk, 21 N.C.App. 474, cert. den. 285 N.C. 666 (1974); see also 28 C.J.S.Supp. Drugs & Narcotics § 100 (1974). Therefore, we hold that § 20-2-20 does not contain an impermissible delegation of legislative power to the Board of Health.
The petitioner's second attack concerns the process by which the substances in question were placed in the controlled classification.
The petitioner was found guilty of possessing (1) codeine, (2) pentazocine [Talwin], (3) chlorazepate, and (4) d-amphetamine *30 sulphate. It appears that (1) and (4) were included in the then current Controlled Substances Inventory List of the U.S. Department of Justice under P.L. 91-513 as Schedule II drugs at the time the Alabama Act was adopted. Chlorazepate was controlled under federal law. The State Board, on February 19, 1975, voted to have state control of chlorazepate coincide with federal control, which became effective on July 2, 1975. Under § 20-2-20(d) the Board found no objection to the classification, hence at the end of 30 days from notice to the Board of that classification that substance became controlled. The petitioner contends that this control procedure violated the requirements of due process of law in two aspects: (1) it failed to follow the procedure outline in paragraph (a), and (2) it furnished inadequate notice to affected parties, was based upon an inadequate record, and was based upon no objective standard for weighing evidence before the Board.
A reading of the statute reveals that the classification procedures under (a) and (b) refer to different scheduling requirements. Paragraph (a) deals with the Board's classification of a substance upon its own initiative. In performing that function the Board is required to consider eight specified aspects, and thereafter under paragraph (b) to "make findings ... and issue a rule controlling the substance if it finds the substance has a potential for abuse."
Paragraph (d), however, entails an entirely different procedure, unrelated to the several aspects specified in paragraph (a). Under (d) the Board may rely upon a final control order published in the federal register, and 30 days from such publication may itself order control. Paragraph (d) allows for an objection to the control of such a substance and a public hearing following the Board's published objections. In its salient features, paragraph (d) adopts the procedures utilized by the federal government in determining a control status, a procedure significantly similar to that accomplished under our own law. 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 802, 811, 812. We may take judicial knowledge of the fact that the Federal Register contains published accounts of preliminary and final control rulings of the Food and Drug Administration of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,[1] that these rules either call for or reflect public hearings, and that they include scientific findings on the qualities and propensities of drugs which are made the basis of recommendations from the Secretary of HEW to the Attorney General of the United States who has the statutory authority to add to or delete a drug from the federal schedule. McElroy, Alabama Evidence § 480.01(4); 21 U.S.C.A. § 811. In short, the federal decision to classify a drug as a controlled substance itself is subject to codified objective standards, and published findings and rules. As we stated, paragraph (d) simply enables the Alabama board to adopt those procedures rather than having to duplicate them. Under that paragraph, moreover, the Board was not required to make an express finding supporting its order. Cf. Alabama Public Service Commission v. Nunis, 252 Ala. 30, 39 So. 2d 409 (1949). Under those circumstances we do not believe that a failure of due process has been shown. Railroad Commission v. A. G. S. R. Co., 185 Ala. 354, 64 So. 13 (1913).
The drug pentazocine [Talwin] was controlled by action of the Board itself on August 15, 1973, as the following minutes of the Board of Health establish:
These minutes, it was conceded by the State Health Officer, constituted the "best" and "legal" record of that meeting.
It is clear from these minutes that the procedures outlined by the legislature in § 20-2-20(a) and (b) were not followed by the Board when it classified Talwin as a controlled substance. The statutory language of subsection (a) is peremptory: "... the state board of health shall consider...." The language of subsection (b) likewise is directory: "After considering the factors enumerated in subsection (a) of this section, the state board of health shall make findings with respect thereto ...." Obviously the legislature considered it necessary for the Board to do more than issue a ruling, for it specified the considerations to be entertained and then directed findings to be made "with respect thereto," that is, with respect to those considerations. Accordingly, we disagree with the Court of Criminal Appeals in its finding that the State Board of Health complied with its statutory duty in classifying the drugs for which the appellant was found guilty. The classification of pentazocine, having been legally deficient, could not constitute the basis for the charge under count two of the indictment, and thus the petitioner could not have been found guilty under that count. Having reached this conclusion, it is unnecessary to consider the other objections to the Board's classification of Talwin. Therefore, petitioner's conviction under count two is reversed and this cause is remanded to the Court of Criminal Appeals for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES, ALMON, SHORES and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
BLOODWORTH and FAULKNER, JJ., not sitting.
[1]  The facts of this case are found in McCurley v. State, Ala.Crim.App., 390 So. 2d 15 [1980].
[1]  Now known as Department of Health and Human Services.