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 containingthe dnfinltianof the **Ol ’** **i ’** **anse,** ox if they be not such as to be essential to the dcflnition of the offense, it will not be necessaryto nagativo s;(1ch

axioa~t:oao

3,s the indictmentcimr&.rg such offenses. T!:is ru3.e seem unifordy rfdhcred to even though the exceptionsroforred 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 impelledto say thnt if tttsre be possibly an cxcegtiento 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 articledeffuin~:

the offense or be in 8 separrite article. In other isaras, if the thing foorbic:Ccn by the partioulorstatuteunder consideretioncould not be proved or the case could, not be s&de out vr.ithout proof of tt,o

co-onlladexceptionor 03fsslen,thMl slid exceiAA.on

would be crnecessaryolemnt.of the offense, and its existeaceshould be nefjr?tived in the indiotnont.R The holdfng in the B&or case is supportedby 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 Characterss that R pri%a fncie **ctmt3** could be nude out against the acsusnd for the violation chhr~3dYtithout 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 cdditlouto horqt~~orerororredto 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 ControlAct, which roods 08 fol-

"It shall not be ne&mwy for eny informtlon, complaintok indictmenttom negative.my exceptionconteined in tiiia Act oonceiaini;

my proh1bltadacts; providsd,**howma,** that my s?wh exceptionnede horcin nay bo urged cs B defame by emy ynrson chnr@ by 8uch cowplaint;~nformtioa, or indictmeut."