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 dcflnition 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 enacting clause of the of'fense in SUCJI my ns to cause 

this court to hold it necessary for sa::e to be negaLived 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 negatived In tba in~dictmnt, no oatter* whera its looation 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 article. 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 

offense, and its existeace should be nefjr?tived in 

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 

‘of the oziis3l.on, or excc~tinn, thnti clt3fqly the oixission of oxceation need not be r.lle::ed. Ii', on Lho othnr hand, the o::!in5j.b~ or oxcsption is the t’~ry i:i.r:t of tim ci:'enso, am? a :mi.-;a 

facie case co~ltl nut be mile o!lt ':rit.liOUG the2 proof Of Such OziB3Lon 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 

Al?tldlO 666-X3 (U), S:l>&.PJi3icI!l 1, t.!lG ~mkalon OI’ e,XCL2pt,i9il .tS 

not tm g13t of t.cm off0:1:x3, ;-un tha~t a ;wj,7?-l i’ncia cfls9 mi$;t 

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:?ng 'en offunrie W:3dOI ti:i.s :rticlo 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 informtlon, complaint ok indictment tom negative.my exception conteined in tiiia Act oonceiaini; my proh1bltad acts; providsd, howma, that my s?wh exception nede horcin nay bo urged cs B defame by 

emy ynrson chnr@ by 8uch cowplaint; ~nformtioa, 

or indictmeut."