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 dnfinltian of the Ol’i’anse, ox if
they be not such as to be essential to the dcflni-
tion of the offense, it will not be necessary to
nagativo s;(1ch axioa~t:oao3,sthe indictment cimr&.rg
such offenses. T!:isru3.eseem unifordy rfdhcred
to even though the exceptions roforred Co tmd in
some formr onnctmnt, hoen *writteninto the enact-
ing clause of the of'fensein SUCJImy ns to cause
this court to hold it necessary for sa::eto be nega-
Lived in the indictrcent ohm'yini;such offense. :;e
feel impelled to say thnt if tttsrebe possibly an
cxcegtien to the rule ebove menlionod, it mast be
~-henthn ,exae:,tion or olaissionis of t5w vary @it
of the offense, end t&en Qmh3 rroulsi Jtcveto ho nega-
tived In tba in~dictmnt,no oatter*whera its looa-
tion 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:!tionbe in the
article deffuin~:the offense or be in 8 separrite ar-
ticle. In other isaras,if the thing foorbic:Ccn by
the partioulor statute under consideretioncould not
be proved or the case could,not be s&de out vr.ithout
proof of tt,oco-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 Ytithoutproof
‘of the oziis3l.on, or excc~tinn, thnticlt3fqly the oixission of ox-
ceation need not be r.lle::ed. Ii', on Lho othnr hand, the o::!in-
5j.b~ or oxcsption is the t’~ry i:i.r:t of tim ci:'enso,am? a :mi.-;a
facie case co~ltlnut be mile o!lt ':rit.liOUG the2 proof Of Such OziB-
3Lon 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 SQCh u:~~:~.j.ssioi?
proof of CI’ Qxcct~t.j.Gn, LTr
ttd, thokfom,, h cG,.?~,l.uiat o:1rir:?ng 'en offunrieW:3dOIti:i.s :r-
ticlo fir.& ri:li,a.r :~.ubrlIv1tbiOll I. of Sr.:“.ci, need not have sat.forth
tbc3& Such Gmis;ntoll3 art2eXCe~tiOt:S.
IE support of this holdin:, \tecite, 2n cdditlou to
horqt~~orerororred to Ln thif3opinion, 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~XLLSI.lriuor
Control Act, which roods 08 fol-
"It shall not be ne&mwy for eny inform-
tlon, complaint ok indictmenttomnegative.my ex-
ception conteined in tiiiaAct oonceiaini;my pro-
h1bltad acts; providsd, howma, that my s?wh ex-
ception nede horcin nay bo urged cs B defame by
emy ynrson chnr@ by 8uch cowplaint; ~nformtioa,
or indictmeut."