OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENE
PRICEDANIEL
ATTORNEY GENERAL OctobeP 24, 1947
Hon. Russell Graham Oplnioa Ho. v-413
County Attorney
Kinbls Countf He: Const~ltutionalltyof Sec-
Junction, Texas tlon'~51,9. B. 172,~50th
Legislature,relative to.
reckless drlvlng of motor
vehicles.
Dear Sir:
You request frOm this Departmenta 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 en-
danger 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 pro-
visions 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 con-
aLdered Senate,BillHo.'172 and House Bill Ho,.140, the
companlo~ Bill, and In the course of the opinion we made
general suggestions Involving the question of '&oustitu-
tlonallty 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 safe-
ty of per&ma or property is allty of reck-
less drlvink.".
Hon. Russell Graham - Page 2 v-413
In our Opinion V-202, after having called at-
tention to the p~ovlaions of~~ArtlcltI, Section 10 of
our Constitutiongiving an accused . . . the right to
demand th$ nature and cause of the accusation against
him . . . and the provisions of Arttcle 6, V.P.C., ve
said:
"The well recognized rule for construing
a penal statute la, that if the statute Is so
IndefInItelydrawn, OP if It Is of such doubt*
ful constructionthat It cannot be understood,
either from the language in which It Is ex-
pressed or from some~wrlttenlaw of the State,
It Is Invalid and void. Rx Parte Meadows, 109
S.W. (26) 1061 (Tex.,Crlm.App. 1937)."
I
We then speciflcally~calledattention to Sec-
tion 54 (above quoted), and concluded by saying:
"Based upon the above quoted authorities,
we question the validity of the above men-
tioned 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 spe-
cific, and thereby ellmlnate the element of
chance as to their constitutionality. By mak-
ing such sections more definite and specific
the Legislaturewill insure the constitution-
ality or same."
The Legislature,after receiving our opinion
(v-202), changed Section 54 to Section 51 and added per-
tinent 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 Su-
preme 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
constltutionalstandardsand is valid.
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRXAS
BY
Ocle 3*&r
Assistant
BY --==?----o
Charles D. Mathews
Assistant
0s:cDM:jt
APPROVED: