State v. Dooley
261 La. 295, 1972 La. LEXIS 4777, 259 So.2d 329 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislature can cure a constitutional defect in a statute resulting from an overly narrow title by passing a subsequent act that amends and reenacts only the title to be sufficiently broad, thereby validating the original statute's provisions without reenacting each of them. Further, regulating various controlled substances under one act does not violate the constitutional single-object rule because it serves the unified purpose of protecting public health and safety.
Facts:
- In 1970, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act 457, which regulated hallucinogens, including LSD, in its body.
- The title of Act 457 of 1970, however, only referred to amending the sub-part of the law dealing with 'narcotic drugs', not hallucinogens.
- In June 1971, the Legislature passed Act 59, which amended and reenacted the title of Act 457 to be broader, explicitly covering 'drugs or dangerous substances having a pharmacological effect which would have a potential for abuse'.
- Act 59 of 1971 did not amend or reenact the specific statutory section that criminalized the possession of LSD (R.S. 40:971(c)).
- On June 16, 1971, one day after Act 59 became law, the defendant was alleged to be in knowing and intentional possession of LSD.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged the defendant in a trial court with possession of LSD under R.S. 40:971(c), as enacted by Act 457 of 1970 and amended by Act 59 of 1971.
- The defendant filed a motion to quash the bill of information, arguing the underlying statute was unconstitutional.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion and quashed the bill of information, finding the statute unconstitutional.
- The State of Louisiana (appellant) appealed the trial court's ruling directly to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a legislative act that amends and reenacts the title of a prior, presumptively constitutional act to broaden its scope cure the original act's constitutional defect of having a body broader than its title, thereby validating a criminal provision within the original act that was not explicitly reenacted?
Opinions:
Majority - Barham, J.
Yes. A subsequent legislative act that amends and reenacts the title of a prior act to broaden its scope can cure the original act's constitutional defect. When the 1971 Legislature passed Act 59, the 1970 Act was presumed constitutional, as the judicial decision invalidating parts of it (State v. Welkner) had not yet been rendered. Therefore, the 1970 Act was considered 'alive' and could be amended. The 1971 act was not an unconstitutional 'revival by reference to its title' but a proper amendment. By amending and reenacting the title to be sufficiently broad to cover dangerous substances like LSD, the legislature validated the entire body of the 1970 act, including R.S. 40:971(c), which did not need to be reenacted. Furthermore, the act does not violate the single-object rule because regulating all controlled substances is germane to the single, broad object of protecting public health and safety.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the legislative power to retroactively cure constitutional defects in statutes, particularly those arising from a state constitution's 'title-body' requirement. It establishes that a legislature can validate a law with a defective title by passing a subsequent act to amend only the title, without reenacting the entire body of the original law. This provides a practical mechanism for legislatures to correct technical constitutional flaws, reinforcing the strong presumption of constitutionality afforded to legislative acts until a final judicial determination is made. The ruling also affirms a broad interpretation of the 'single object' rule, permitting comprehensive legislation on related topics under a single bill.
