Question: What odd, unusual, or obscure cases have you been asked to prosecute by law enforcement or your constituents?

I'm not asking about odd facts, but odd LAWS that you have enforced (or that were referred to you for enforcement, but you declined for some reason).

We have a lot of non-Penal Code offenses listed in our Texas Crimes book, and I'm curious to know if any of them ever get enforced. My suspicion is that most are never used, but who knows? Surprise me ...

Trap, Transport or Transplant a wild whitetail deer without a permit. Went to a Jury and was sentenced to 180 days probated for 6 mo. with a $1500 fine.

It's not all THAT exotic, since it's in the penal code, but we used the riot statute for some knuckleheads that were involved in a Sharks v. Jets style rumble outside a local bar. One person threw a brick that resulted in some severe and lasting head injuries on the victim (and got an agg assault case for his trouble), the co-defendants we filed on for Riot instead of trying to squeeze them in under the law of parties.

The one that I keep waiting on the right set of facts to use is Trademark Counterfeiting. I've come close a time or two with prescription drugs being sold as something they're not, but never quite had it...

Our Troopers are filing a fair number cases involving violation of the Tax Code by improper use of red dye diesel fuel.

Janette A

We were asked to threaten to prosecute the proprietor of a local "adult novelty" and head shop for the unlicensed sale of contact lenses a few years back. Being a wearer of contact lenses myself, I would've thought the dosage of Clear Eyes necessary to counter the ocular effects of hippie lettuce would be incompatible with inserting anything into the eyes to alter the color of one's irises (they were cosmetic, not therapeutic, lenses). We sent a threatening letter and they quit selling before a formal case was presented.

But my favorite (which may not have been that exotic) was a possession of an undersized fish case in JP court, back whent Lake Meredith had enough water that it actually extended into our county. The defendant was fishing for yellow catfish, and was drunk at the time of the offense, as well as at trial. Shocking, no? At closing argument, my good friend (and great prosecutor) who took lead on the case told the jury that he couldn't believe the defendant expected them to buy his "I didn't know the fish was that small" story, "hook, line and sinker." He finished by telling the jury that there was a victim in the case, and that victim was crying out to them for [making hand gestures like a fish's gill flaps working] "justice." Took the jury less than 10 minutes to find the defendant guilty. Noodle that.

If he hadn't been drunk when he was fishing, wouldn't that have been a crime?

Took me a while to find the law as I really never had the need until an officer found an amorous couple doing the dirty in their car along with several boxes of penises( fake ones thank God)Thought it would be fun but then the officer told me he didn't take the evidence or photograph them after they were arrested so the case never went any further. Aren't there women out there who have parties with these toys???Kinda like Tupperware parties? Anyone old enough to know what Tupperware is? Sorry No access at home to the PC for cite to share for this common crime.

It was the subject matter of one of the all-time classic lines from an opinion:

"Here we go raising the price of dildos again. Since this appears to be the law in Texas I must concur."

Regalado v. State, 872 S.W.2d 7, 11 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, pet. ref'd) (Brown, C.J., concurring).

Incidentally, the Fifth Circuit found the statute unconstitutional in Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2008). Subsequently, though the court expressed agreement with the Fifth Circuit's reasoning, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals declined to conclude that its holding was binding on Texas courts. See Villareal v. State, 267 S.W.3d 204, 207-08 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.).

One of my officers stopped a guy because the guy's exhaust smoke did not dissipate within a certain amount of time. I said no way, but he sent me to the code and guess what...Transp Code Section 547.605(d)and (e)

(d) Except when travel conditions require the downshifting or use of lower gears to maintain reasonable momentum, a person commits an offense if the person operates, or as an owner knowingly permits another person to operate, a vehicle that emits1) visible smoke for 10 seconds or longer; or(2) visible smoke that remains suspended in the air for 10 seconds or longer before fully dissipating.
(e)An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $1 and not more than $350 for each violation. If a person has previously been convicted of an offense under this section, an offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $200 and not more than $1,000 for each violation.

Given the rural nature of our county and the propensity of certain persons to have crimson hue about their necks, I feel that this may be the start of something...

J

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wise County Attorney:
Given the rural nature of our county and the propensity of certain persons to have crimson hue about their necks, I feel that this may be the start of something...

---

Get ready, because here it comes... Like this.

I once prosecuted a fellow for representing himself as an insurance agent after his license had been revoked. As I recall, it is a violation of the Insurance Code, and was a felony punishable by "up to 2 years" in prison.

I had never heard of the statue, until I got a call from a cop in West Texas warning me about this guy in our county, and that he was violating this statute in the Insurance Code. I think he was a con man.

When I was a public prosecutor in Zimbabwe I often prosecuted people for violating the Witchcraft (Suppression) Act. It was against the law to accuse another of having caused the death, illness, or serious injury of another or of an animal by supernatural means. The typical defendant was an African woman, and the most common setting would be the funeral of a young child. In the typical case, when the mourners were keening, the defendant would suddenly exclaim, "Bessie Masikwa is responsible for this! She is a witch!"

In my area, if the others thought Bessie might be a witch, all they did was avoid her. But in some areas the Afs were known to kill the suspected witch.

In my area, the victim would feel compelled to pay $5.00 (a lot of money to an Af in those days) to a Nyanga (witch doctor)who would then give her a bowl of muti, a white liquid. She would drink this stuff, and if she got diarrhea, then she was not a witch, and she could rejoin the community. Luckily, everyone I ever heard of who drank this muti came down with the runs.

I thought these cases were extremely interesting, so I always set them down for Fridays, before my favorite magistrate, Mr. Cutler. They were my end of the week treat. (As a prosecutor, I had discretion to decide what date and court a case was tried in. I had 3 magistrates to choose from, but Mr. Cutler was such a great guy, I really enjoyed working in front of him.) Mr. Cutler, on the other hand, hated witch craft suppression cases, but because I liked him so much, he heard every WCS case in our district. One day I overheard him talking to the court clerk, "I just can't understand it: we seem to have a really major problem with all these witch craft suppression cases." He looked so sad. But not sad enough to start filing those cases before the other magistrates.

I understand Robert Mugabe's govt. repealed the Witch Craft (Suppression) Act. They claimed it was "colonial," which it was. It was one of the first statutes the British South Africa Co. imposed on Rhodesia, and it was done entirely to protect defenseless Africans.

I also prosecuted a few bad guys for violating the Law & Order (Maintenance) Act which made it an offense to cause someone "to do an act which they were not legally obliged to do," or it's twin, to cause someone "to refrain from doing an act which they were not legally obliged to refrain from doing." Pretty broad statute. You had to have the Attorney General's permission to prosecute under it.

This was a Felony 3. Actually went to trial on this one.
Civ.St.Art. 179E