Berger v. United States
200 F.2d 818, 1952 U.S. App. LEXIS 2370 (1952)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A penal statute prohibiting the introduction of adulterated food into interstate commerce is constitutional if its language provides a sufficiently definite warning of proscribed conduct, interpreted to mean a reasonable possibility of contamination, and if the evidence is sufficient to infer the existence of insanitary conditions at the time of shipment.
Facts:
- The defendant, a partner in a St. Louis, Missouri, pickle-making business, caused several shipments of pickle relish in jars to be introduced and delivered for introduction into interstate commerce to consignees in Illinois on May 3, 1951, and May 17, 1951.
- An inspector for the Food and Drug Administration conducted an inspection of the defendant's plant on May 21, 22, and 23, 1951.
- During the inspection, the plant was observed to have approximately 200 unscreened windows (20-25 broken), unscreened outside doors, pigeons flying freely in and out, and sometimes shot inside.
- The pickle chopper was rusted and corroded, with grease running onto the cutting blades, and pickle relish material was imbedded in cracks of a wooden trough.
- The relish-making area contained a wooden table covered with dust and stained material, 16 uncovered barrels of pickles, and one barrel of onions with vinegar flies, houseflies, spiders, bird feathers, and mold.
- Large vats contained moldy pickles, some approximately half an inch thick with whitish and grayish mold, and others containing pickles in solution with particles of sticks, grass, muddy pickles, and insect-like fragments.
- Trash and decomposing pickles were found on the ground around outside vats, and other large vats inside the plant were uncovered with pickles scattered around, some in various stages of decomposition.
- Analysis of the contents of the seized pickle relish shipments revealed fragments of a fly skin, part of a fly’s leg, mites, part of a beetle wing, a moth scale, fragments of feathers, and fragments of rodent hair.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a federal information with three counts of unlawfully causing adulterated food to be introduced into interstate commerce.
- At the close of the government's case, the government dismissed the third count of the information.
- The defendant moved to dismiss Counts One and Two, arguing that the information did not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense and that the statute was unconstitutional; these motions were overruled by the trial court.
- The defendant also made a separate motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction; this motion was also overruled.
- The case was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict of guilty on both counts.
- After the verdict, the defendant renewed the motion for judgment of acquittal, again arguing insufficiency of the evidence, which the trial court overruled.
- Judgment and sentence were imposed upon the defendant.
- The defendant appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is 21 U.S.C.A. § 342(a)(4), which defines food as adulterated if prepared or packed under insanitary conditions 'whereby it may have become contaminated with filth,' unconstitutionally vague under the Sixth Amendment, and was the evidence presented sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction under this statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Collet, Circuit Judge
Yes, 21 U.S.C.A. § 342(a)(4) is constitutional because its language conveys a sufficiently definite warning of prohibited conduct when measured by common understanding, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court first addressed the constitutional challenge, reiterating the 'void for vagueness' doctrine's requirement that penal statutes be explicit enough to inform individuals of criminal conduct. However, the court emphasized that 'impossible standards of specificity are not required,' and the test is whether the language provides 'sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practices,' citing Jordan v. De George. The phrase 'whereby it may have become contaminated' is not interpreted as a 'mere possibility' but as conditions 'which would with reasonable possibility result in contamination,' a construction previously upheld in United States v. Lexington Mill & Elevator Co., making the statute impervious to attack. The court rejected the argument that the statute's lack of definition for 'insanitary conditions' or its reliance on matters of 'degree' renders it vague, noting that 'the law is full of instances where a man’s fate depends on his estimating rightly... some matter of degree,' as illustrated in Nash v. United States. The terms 'insanitary conditions,' 'contaminated,' and 'filth' are commonly understood descriptive terms that, when read together, provide a definite meaning that a 'reasonably intelligent person should know what that means.' Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the court found the extensive insanitary conditions observed during the plant inspections on May 21-23, 1951, including the presence of pests, mold, rust, and decomposing matter, justified an inference that these conditions had existed for a considerable period. Crucially, the direct evidence from the analysis of the seized pickle relish shipments — which contained fragments of insects (fly, beetle, moth), feathers, and rodent hair — provided conclusive proof that the food was contaminated, linking the insanitary plant conditions to the specific shipments made earlier in May. This evidence was sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the plant was in an insanitary condition on the dates of the shipments, thereby supporting the jury's verdict.
Analysis:
This case significantly affirms the constitutionality of public health statutes, particularly the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, against vagueness challenges. By clarifying that 'impossible standards of specificity' are not required for criminal statutes and that a 'reasonable possibility' of contamination suffices, the court provides a workable standard for regulators. This interpretation allows the government to proactively prevent food adulteration by targeting insanitary conditions before actual harm occurs, while still upholding due process rights by ensuring the statute provides adequate warning. Future cases will cite this precedent when addressing the permissible breadth of statutory language in regulatory contexts, particularly those involving health and safety where 'matters of degree' are inherent to the subject matter.
