State v. Wingate
1996 WL 77056, 668 So. 2d 1324 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Louisiana statute prohibiting the possession of undersized commercial fish, La.R.S. 56:326 A, is a strict liability offense. The state does not need to prove that the defendant possessed scienter, or guilty knowledge, to secure a conviction.
Facts:
- Wildlife and Fisheries agents received an anonymous tip that a truck from Bennett Seafood, a Georgia company, was in Louisiana picking up undersized catfish.
- Edwin Wingate, a truck driver for Bennett Seafood, was dispatched to Louisiana to pick up shipments of frozen, boxed catfish.
- Wingate's job was to pick up pre-ordered fish from suppliers, pay for them with a company check, and transport them back to Georgia.
- Wingate picked up two large shipments of frozen catfish from B & C Seafoods, Inc. and Cajun Catfish.
- On December 4, 1994, after about two days of surveillance, agents stopped Wingate's tractor-trailer on I-10 in St. Tammany Parish near the Mississippi border.
- A search of the truck revealed that a very high proportion of the channel catfish were undersized: 36.3% from one supplier and 74.45% from the other.
- Wingate testified that he did not open the sealed boxes, did not know the size of the fish inside, and was unfamiliar with Louisiana's fishing regulations.
- The paperwork Wingate provided was incomplete under Louisiana law, as it did not list the species of fish or the license number of the seller.
Procedural Posture:
- Edwin Wingate was charged by bill of information in a Louisiana trial court with possession of undersized catfish and failure to maintain records.
- Wingate filed a motion to quash the charges, arguing the underlying statute was unconstitutional, which the trial court denied.
- Wingate pled not guilty and, after a bench trial, was found guilty as charged by the trial court.
- The trial court sentenced Wingate to jail time and fines.
- Wingate filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, which the trial court denied.
- Wingate then filed a writ application to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, seeking review of his convictions and sentences.
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 the Louisiana statute prohibiting the possession of undersized catfish, La.R.S. 56:326 A, require the state to prove that the defendant had knowledge (scienter) that the fish were undersized?
Opinions:
Majority - Kuhn, J.
No, the statute does not require the state to prove the defendant had knowledge that the fish were undersized. La.R.S. 56:326 A is a strict liability statute, and the act of possessing the undersized fish is sufficient for a conviction. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute includes no requirement of criminal intent or scienter. To judicially impose such a requirement would severely hamper enforcement efforts, as wholesale or retail dealers could easily claim ignorance about the contents of sealed or packaged shipments, creating an almost absolute defense. The court concluded that while this may seem harsh, all persons involved in the commercial seafood industry must familiarize themselves with all applicable regulations or risk prosecution. The court also rejected Wingate's constitutional challenges, finding that different regulations for different species like crabs and catfish do not violate equal protection, as they address distinct enforcement problems.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that certain public welfare offenses, especially within highly regulated industries like commercial fishing, are strict liability crimes. By refusing to read a 'mens rea' or 'scienter' requirement into the statute, the court prioritizes the state's public policy interest in conservation and effective enforcement over an individual's lack of criminal intent. This places a significant burden of compliance on all actors in the supply chain, including transporters, to ensure they adhere to regulations, regardless of their direct knowledge of a specific violation. The ruling makes the 'I didn't know' defense untenable in such regulatory prosecutions in Louisiana.
