THEAYTORNEY GENERAL 

OFTEXAS 

GERALD C. MANN 

AUSTIN I,.TEXAR 

Honorable Shelburne R. Glover 

County Attorney 

Marion County 

Jefferson, Texas 

Dear Sir: Opinion No. O-3236 

Re: Interpretation 

3Olb, Vernon's 

Code. 

of Article 

Annotated Penal 

This is in reply to your letter of February 28, 

1941, requestlng the opinion of this Department upon the 

following questions arising under Article 301b, Vernon's 

Annotated Penal Code: 

"1 . Would it be a violation of the law 

for an operator of an automobile to pass a 

school bus which did not have signs on each 

side showing the words 'School Bus?' 

"2 . Is it a violation of the law for a 

driver of a school bus to operate such vehicle 

where the words 'School Bus' appear only on the 

ends of said vehicle?" 

Article 301b reads as follows: 

"Section 1. All vehicles used for the 

transportation of pupils to and/or from any 

school or college, shall have a sign on the front 

and rear and on each side of said vehicle, showing 

the words 'School Bus' and said words shall be 

plainly readable in letters not less than six (6) 

inches in height. It shall be the duty of the 

operator of such 'School Bus' vehicle to see that 

such signs are displayed as above provided, and 

it shall be unlawful to operate any such 'School 

Bus' vehicle unless such signs are so displayed 

thereon. When any such 'School Bus' vehicle stops, 

every operator of a motor vehicle or motorcycle 

approaching the same from any direction shall 

bring such motor vehicle or motorcycle to a full 

stop before proceeding in any direction; and in 

event such 'School Bus' vehicle is receiving and/ 
- . 

Honorable Shelburne H. Glover, page 2 o-3236 

or discharging passengers, the said operator of 

such motor vehicle or motorcycle shall not'start 

up or attempt to pass in any direction until the 

said 'School Bus' vehicle has finished receiving 

and/or discharging its passengers. 

"Section 2. Any party who vlolates any of 

the provisions of Section 1 of this Act shall, 

upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor, 

and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less 

than Ten ($lO,OO) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred 

($500.00) Dollars, or confined in the county jail 

not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both such fine 

and imprisonment; provided, however, that if death 

results to any person, caused either actually or 

remotely by a noncompliance and/or violation of 

any of the provisions of this Act, then and in 

that event, the party or parties so offending shall 

be punished as is now provided by law.' 

Note that all vehicles used for the transportation 

of pupils to and from any school or college are required to 

have a sign on the front, rear and on each side of the vehicle showing the words 'School Bus.' These words must be 

plainly readable in letters not less than six inches in height. 

It is unlawful to operate a school bus unless these signs 

are so displayed. Every operator of a motor vehicle is required to bring his vehicle to a sto$ before proceeding "when 

'School Bus' vehicle stops. 

Articles 1, 3 and 7 of the Penal Code read as follows: 

"Article 1. The design of enacting this code 

IS to define in plain language every offense against 

the laws of this Stateb and to affix to each offense 

its proper punishment. 

"Article 3. In order that the system of penal 

law in force in this State may be complete within itself, and that no system of foreign laws, written or 

unwritten, may be appealed to, it is declared that 

no person shall be punished for any act or omission, 

unless the same is made a penal offense, and a penalty 

is affixed thereto by the written law of this State. 

"Article 7. This Code and every other law 

upon the subject of crime which may be enacted shall 

be construed according to the plain import of the 

language in which It is written, without regard to 
Honorable Shelburne H. Glover, page 3 o-3236 

the distinction usually mad~e between the construction 

of penal laws and laws upon other subjects; and no 

person shall be punished for an offense which is not 

made penal by the plain import of the words of a law." 

In Murray v. State, 21 Cr. App. 620, 57 Am. Rep. 

623, 2 S.W. 757, the appellants were convicted for nilfully 

and mischievously injuring a locomotive engine under a statute making it unlawful to destroy or injure "growing fruit, 

corn, grain, or other agricultural products or property, 

real or personal." The court dismissed the prosecution and 

on motion for rehearing, quoted the following with approval: 

"'The legitimate function of courts is 

to internret the legislative will, not to supplementit,or to supply It. The judiciary must limit themselves to expounding the law; they cannot 

make it. It belongs only to the legislative department to create crimes and ordain punishments. 

Accordingly, courts, in the construction of statutable offenses, have always regarded it as their 

plain duty cautiously to keep clearly within the 

expressed will of the legislature, lest otherwise 

they shall hold an act or an omission to be a 

crime, and punish it, when in fact the legislature 

had never so intended it. "If this rule is violated," says Chief Justice Best, "the fate of the 

accused person is decided by the arbitrary discretion of the judge:, and not by the express authority of the laws. The principle that the 

legislative intent is to be found, if possible, in 

the enactment itself, and that the statutes are 

not to be extended by construction to cases not 

fairly and clearly embraced in their terms, is one 

of great importance to the citizen. The courts 

have no power to create offenses, but if , by a 

latitudinarian construction, they construe cases 

not provided for to be within the legislative 

enactments, it is manifest that the safety and 

liberty of the citizen are put in peril, and that 

the legislative domain has been invaded. Of course, 

an enactment is not to be frittered away by forced 

constructions, by metaphysical niceties, or mere 

verbal and sharp criticisms. Nevertheless the doctrine is fundamental in English and American law 

that there can be no constructive offenses; that, 

before a man can be punished, his case must be 

plainly and unmistakably within the statute, &I$ 

if there be sa doubt whether the statute emFaxtythat doubt --- is to be resolved & favor of 
. . 

Honorable Shelburne H. Glover, page 4 o-3236 

Cr. 

the accused. These principles of law admit of 

no dispute, and have been often declared by the 

highest courts, and by no tribunal more clearly 

than the supreme court of the United States; ***I' 

In Strong v. State (Ct. Cr. App. 1907), 52 Tex. 

Rep. 133, 105 S.W. 785, the court said: 

'* * * The rule laid down in the Mitchell 

Case was based upon the proposition that where 

the statute, by express terms, limits the punishment to certain classes, or for the doing of certain acts, that it is only those who, are brought 

by the facts under such definition that are amenable. This, we think, is a sound rule and supported by the authorities generally. *'* *'I 

Adverting to Article 301b, the plain import of the 

language used is that "such 'School Bus'" refers to a bus 

displaying the required signs. By the plain language of the 

article it is only a violation of law to pass such a bus 

without stopping. 

It is elementary that an accused is entitled to 

every safeguard afforded him by law. Here for the protection 

of all concerned, the law requires a "School Bus" to be so 

designated in letters at least six inches high on each and 

every side of the vehicle. One has violated Article 301b of 

the Penal Code only when he passes such a bus without stopPing. AS you so aptly put it, 

'I reason that if the words had been~ on 

the sides of the bus, the operator of the passing 

vehicle might have seen them and stopped and that 

he was entitled to every warning that the law provided before a conviction would be sustained." 

Before one may be prosecuted his acts must fall 

within the letter and spirit of the statute. Waldstein v. 

State, 20 Tex. Cr. App. 82, 14 S.W. 394. If there is any 

doubt whether a statute embraces an accused's actions, that 

doubt will be resolved in his favor. Murray v. State, supra. 

Accordingly, it is our opinion that your first 

question should be answered in the negative. 

Your second question is answered in the affirmative 

by the very language of Article 301b. It provides: 

"It shall be the duty of the operator of 
Honorable Shelburne H. Glover, page 5 o-3236 

such 'School Bus' vehicle to see that such signs 

are displayed as above provided, and it shall be 

unlawful to operate anysuch 'School Bus' vzhicle 

unless such signs are so displayed thereon. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By s/James D. Smullen 

James D. Smullen 

Assistant 

JDS : js :wc 

APPROVED MARCH 29, 1941 

s/Gerald C. Mann 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

Approved Opinion Committee By s/BWB Chairman