OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENE 

PRICEDANIEL 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OctobeP 24, 1947 

Hon. Russell Graham 

County Attorney 

Kinbls Countf 

Junction, Texas 

Oplnioa Ho. v-413 

He: Const~ltutionallty of Sectlon'~51, 9. B. 172,~50th 

Legislature, relative to. 

reckless drlvlng of motor 

vehicles. 

Dear Sir: 

You request frOm this Department a ruling oh 

the constltutionality~ of Section 51, Article V of Senate 

Bill 172, 50th,Legislatwe, the Act Regulating Traffic 

on Blghways. 

Se&Ion 51, Article v or the Act IS as r01- 

1ovs: 

~~, 

“Every person who drlves any vehicle 

in willful or wanton disregard or the rightp 

or aarety or others OF without due caution 

or clrcrrmspection, and at a speed or la a 

manner so as to endanger OP be likely to endanger a p&son or property shall be guilty 

0r reckless driving." 

Seation 143 of Article XVI of the Act makes It 

a misdemeanor for any person to violate any of the provisions of-the Act unless such violation is by the Act 

or other laws of the State declared to be ~a felony. 

In our Opinion Ho. V-202 this Department conaLdered Senate,Bill Ho.'172 and House Bill Ho,. 140, the 

companlo~ Bill, and In the course of the opinion we made 

general suggestions Involving the question of '&oustitutlonallty of 81-e of the sections of the Act, anioag them 

being Section 54 vhich read as follovs: 

'%very person who delves any vehicle 

In willful or,wanton disregard for the safety of per&ma or property is allty of reckless drlvink.". 
Hon. Russell Graham - Page 2 v-413 

In our Opinion V-202, after having called attention to the p~ovlaions of~~Artlclt I, Section 10 of 

our Constitution giving an accused . . . the right to 

demand th$ nature and cause of the accusation against 

him . . . 

said: 

and the provisions of Arttcle 6, V.P.C., ve 

"The well recognized rule for construing 

a penal statute la, that if the statute Is so 

IndefInItely drawn, OP if It Is of such doubt* 

ful construction that It cannot be understood, 

either from the language in which It Is expressed or from some~wrltten law of the State, 

It Is Invalid and void. Rx Parte Meadows, 109 

S.W. (26) 1061 (Tex.,Crlm. App. 1937)." 

I 

We then speciflcally~called attention to Section 54 (above quoted), and concluded by saying: 

"Based upon the above quoted authorities, 

we question the validity of the above mentioned sections from:the standpoint of being 

derinite. In the ltght of existing decisions 

on the subject, It is our opinion that auoh 

sections should be made more definite and specific, and thereby ellmlnate the element of 

chance as to their constitutionality. By making such sections more definite and specific 

the Legislature will insure the constitutionality or same." 

(v-202), 

The Legislature, after receiving our opinion 

changed Section 54 to Section 51 and added pertinent features which It othervise did not contain. 

As Section 51, Article V of the Act now stands 

we are unwilling to hold, in the light of the preceding 

decisions by our Court of Crlmlnal Appeals and our Supreme Court, that the section la unconstitutional. 

SUMMARY 

Sec. 51, Art. V., s. B. 172, Acts 50th 

Leg:, 1947, which is the~%ecklesb~ driving" 

provision of the Act Regulating Traffic on 
-, 

Hon. Russell Graham - Page 3 v-413 

Highways, 1s sufflcieiitly definite to meet 

constltutional standards and is valid. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRXAS 

BY 

Ocle 3*&r 

Assistant 

BY --==?----o 

Charles D. Mathews 

Assistant 

0s:cDM:jt 

APPROVED: