OFFICE OF



# THE ATTORNEY GENE

PRICEDANIEL ATTORNEY GENERAL OctobeP 24, 1947

Hon. Russell Graham CountyAttorney Kinbls Countf Junction,Texas Oplnioa Ho. v-413 He: Const~ltutionallty of Sectlon'~51,

9. B. 172,~50th Legislature,

relative to. recklessdrlvlng of motor vehicles. Dear Sir: You request frOm this Departmenta ruling oh the constltutionality~ of Section 51, ArticleV of Senate Bill 172, 50th,Legislatwe, the Act RegulatingTraffic on Blghways.

Se&Ion 51, Article v or the Act IS as r01- 1ovs: ~~,

“Everypersonwho 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 misdemeanorfor any person to violate any of the provisions of-theAct 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 DepartmentconaLdered Senate,Bill Ho.'172 and House Bill Ho,.140, the companlo~Bill, and In the course of the opinionwe made general suggestionsInvolvingthe question of '&oustitutlonalltyof 81-e of the sections of the Act, anioag them being Section 54 vhich read as follovs:

'%veryperson who delves any vehicle In willful or,wantondisregard for the safety of per&ma or property is allty of reckless drlvink.".Hon. Russell Graham - Page 2 v-413

In our OpinionV-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 accusationagainst him

. . . said: and the provisionsof Arttcle 6, V.P.C., ve

"Thewell recognizedrule for construing a penal statute la, that if the statute Is so IndefInItely

drawn, OP if It Is of such doubt* ful constructionthat It cannot be understood, either from the language in which It Is expressed or from some~wrlttenlaw of the State, It Is Invalidand void. Rx Parte Meadows, 109 S.W. (26) 1061 (Tex.,Crlm. App. 1937)." I We then speciflcally~called attention to Section 54 (abovequoted),and concludedby saying:

"Basedupon the above quoted authorities, we question the validity of the above mentioned sections from:the standpointof being derinite. In the ltght of existingdecisions on the subject,

It is our opinion that auoh sections should be made more definite and specific, and thereby ellmlnatethe element of chance as to their constitutionality. By making such sectionsmore definite and specific the Legislaturewill insure the constitutionality or same." (v-202), The Legislature,after receivingour opinion

changed Section 54 to Section 51 and added pertinent featureswhich It othervisedid not contain.

As Section 51, Article V of the Act now stands we are unwillingto hold, in the light of the preceding decisionsby our Court of CrlmlnalAppeals 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" provisionof the Act RegulatingTraffic on-, Hon. Russell Graham - Page 3 v-413
Highways, 1s sufflcieiitly definite to meet constltutional

standardsand is valid.

Yours very truly ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRXAS

BY Ocle 3*&r

Assistant

BY --==?----o CharlesD. Mathews

Assistant 0s:cDM:jt APPROVED: