Home/Supreme Court of Louisiana/State v. Dardar

State v. Dardar

241 So. 2d 905, 257 La. 191, 1970 La. LEXIS 3389
CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana
DecidedNovember 9, 1970
Docket50337
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 241 So. 2d 905 (State v. Dardar) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Dardar, 241 So. 2d 905, 257 La. 191, 1970 La. LEXIS 3389 (La. 1970).

Opinion

McCALEB, Justice.

Defendants were charged in separate bills of information with trawling in inside waters of the State during the closed season in violation of R.S. 56:495.1. In response to a joint motion for a bill of particulars requesting the exact location of the alleged offense, the State answered that defendants had trawled “In Caillou Bay, Parish of Terrebonne, Louisiana.”

Thereafter, defendants filed a motion to quash the bills of information, contending that R.S. 56:495.1 is unconstitutional in that it is vague and ambiguous and hence permits no defense. Specifically, they asserted that the statutory description' of the inside waters of the Louisiana coastline, within which trawling is proscribed during the closed season, is inadequate to place them on their guard as to the location of the inside waters either by the recitals of the Act or on a sketch of the Louisiana coastal waters which has been annexed to R.S. 56:495.1 by reference. It is contended that the line drawn on the sketch, which allegedly separates inside waters from outside waters, is wholly arbitrary and without a fixed point, so much so, that no one reading the statute or examining the sketch would be able to ascertain what portion of Caillou Bay is supposed to be within inside waters.

*193 The trial judge maintained the motion to quash, finding the Act unconstitutional in part because of vagueness in the description of the area of Caillou Bay, a part of the waters of which are shown on the sketch attached to the Act as inside waters. The judge declared, in essence, that the recitals of the Act describing the inside waters as supplemented by the sketch is so indefinite as to make it impossible for anyone to locate the portion of Caillou Bay which is comprised within the inside waters.

The State has appealed contending that the ruling of the trial judge is erroneous because, when R.S. 56:495 (A) and the annexed sketch are read together, the boundaries of the prohibited area are sufficiently distinct and may be interpreted by reasonably intelligent persons.

R.S. 56:495 as amended by Act 452 of 1962, insofar as pertinent here, defines inside and outside waters as follows:

“A. Solely for the purposes of this Sub-part, the shrimping waters of the State are divided into two classes, inside waters and outside waters. The dividing line between inside and outside waters shall be a line commencing from the mouth of Sabine Pass in an easterly direction following the offshore beaches to South Point on Marsh Isle, thence in a direct line to Eugene I. Lighthouse; then continuing in an easterly direction along the beaches to the west end of Isles Dernieres and then easterly along the beaches of Isles Dernieres, Wine Isle and Timbalier Island to the mouth of Bayou Lafourche; * * * all as according to line indicated on sketch hereinbelow set forth.
“B. All waters of the state shoreward of the line described in Sub-section A within which the tide regularly rises and falls or into which salt water shrimp migrate are inside waters. All waters seaward of the line described in Subsection A are outside waters.” (Italics ours)

In order that the question for decision may be readily understood, we herewith reproduce a copy of the relevant portion of the sketch annexed to the statute, viz.

An examination of the language of the statute and the sketch annexed thereto makes it evident that the recitals of the Act describing inside and outside waters conflict with the line drawn on the sketch in the Caillou Bay area. In view of this, persons engaged in trawling or shrimping in the waters of Caillou Bay during the closed season have no way of knowing when they are within the inside waters of the bay which allegedly come within the ban of the statute.

At the outset, it is perfectly obvious that the delineation of the dividing line between inside and outside waters, as contained in *195 the statute, is equivocal. For the Act, after stating the dividing line begins at the mouth of Sabine Pass and runs in an easterly direction following the offshore beaches to South Point on Marsh Isle and thence in a direct line to Eugene I. Lighthouse, declares that the dividing line continues “ * * * in an easterly direction along *197 the beaches to the west end of Isles Dernieres and then easterly along the beaches of Isles Dernieres * * But this is impossible because the line cannot run in an easterly direction along the beaches to the west end of Isles Dernieres. The direction from the beaches on the mainland to the western end of Isles Dernieres is *199 south or, as shown by the line on the sketch, attached to the Act, in a southwesterly direction, from the mainland to the west end of Isles Dernieres traversing an undefined portion of Caillou Bay. The State concedes this conflict between the statute as written and the attached sketch. However it professes that the sketch controls since it is made part of the statute and that, when the recitals of the Act and the sketch are read together, the designation of inside and outside waters is clear.

*195

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Powell
515 So. 2d 1085 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1987)
State v. Payton
361 So. 2d 866 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1978)
State v. Baker
359 So. 2d 110 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1978)
State v. Smith
357 So. 2d 505 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1978)
State v. Skinner
358 So. 2d 280 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1978)
LaBauve v. Louisiana Wildlife & Fisheries Commission
444 F. Supp. 1370 (E.D. Louisiana, 1978)
Connick v. Lucky Pierre's
331 So. 2d 431 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1976)
State v. Carpenter
319 So. 2d 355 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1975)
State v. Lindsey
310 So. 2d 89 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1975)
State v. Slayton
301 So. 2d 600 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1974)
Dubois v. State of Louisiana
339 F. Supp. 685 (E.D. Louisiana, 1972)
State v. Sevin
241 So. 2d 909 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
241 So. 2d 905, 257 La. 191, 1970 La. LEXIS 3389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dardar-la-1970.