Court Opinion

ID: 9680695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:36:50.822278+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:30.005586
License: Public Domain

SHANNON, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
Appellee pleaded, among other things, that Art. 666-15½, subd. A(9)(b) was in violation of Article 6 of the Penal Code and in violation of Art. I, Section 19 of the Constitution of Texas.
Article 6 provides, “whenever it appears that a provision of the penal law is so indefinitely framed or of such doubtful construction that it cannot be understood, either from the language in which it is expressed, or from some other written law of the State, such penal law shall be regarded as wholly inoperative”.
An examination of the transcript reveals that the judgment was based both on the violation of the penal provision and the constitutional provision.
The majority opinion seems to be grounded upon constitutional considerations despite the well accepted rule that a court will not pass on the constitutionality of a statute if the case may be decided on other grounds. San Antonio General Drivers, etc. v. Thornton, 156 Tex. 641, 299 S.W.2d 911 (1957).
From an examination of the record, I am of the opinion that Art. 666-151/2, subd. A(9)(b) is in violation of Art. 6 of the Penal Code in that the term, “primary *622American source of supply”, is of such doubtful construction that it cannot be understood.
I would affirm the judgment.