State v. Wingate

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit · 1996 · Evidence

668 So. 2d 1324 (La. App. 1996)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencestrict liabilityscienterundersized catfishwildlife and fisheriesrecord keepingwholesale/retail dealer licensevagueness

Facts

Wildlife and Fisheries agents stopped Wingate's tractor-trailer on I-10 after surveillance and found a large frozen catfish shipment containing a high proportion of undersized channel catfish. The shipment included fish from two Louisiana sellers, and agents testified that 36.3% of one seller's channel catfish and 74.45% of the other's were undersized. Wingate had some paperwork in the truck, including a wholesale/retail dealer's license, receipts, and check stubs, but the receipts lacked the fish species and the license number of the fisherman or dealer from whom the seafood was purchased. Wingate testified that he was a Georgia truck driver for Bennett Seafood, picked up and paid for the fish, did not open the boxes, and did not know the fish sizes or Louisiana record-keeping rules.

Issue

Whether La.R.S. 56:326 A(7)(b) is unconstitutional as vague, overbroad, or a denial of equal protection; whether Wingate, as an employee truck driver, could be convicted of failing to maintain records required of wholesale/retail dealers; whether possession of undersized catfish under La.R.S. 56:326 A requires proof of scienter; and whether his sentence was properly imposed.

Rule

A defendant may not invalidate La.R.S. 56:326 A(7)(b) based on hypothetical unconstitutional applications to others when those circumstances are not before the court. Under La.R.S. 56:326 A, possession of undersized catfish for commercial purposes is a strict-liability offense because the statute contains no intent requirement, and courts will not read in scienter or guilty knowledge. An employee buying, acquiring, handling, or selling fish away from the employer's place of business must possess the required wholesale/retail dealer license and comply with the record-keeping requirements of La.R.S. 56:306.4 A. Forfeiture of seized fish under the wildlife statutes is administrative rather than part of the judicial sentence.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Lake Charles, Nolan Price works for Bayou Crest Seafood, a licensed dealer that buys frozen channel catfish for resale in Texas. Wildlife officers inspect Nolan's refrigerated truck and find that more than 10% of the channel catfish in sealed boxes are below the legal size. Nolan testifies he never opened the boxes and had no idea the fish were undersized.

If Nolan is prosecuted for possession of undersized catfish for commercial purposes, which is the strongest argument for conviction?

Explanation. The majority held that the undersized-catfish offense contains no intent requirement and courts should not read scienter into the statute. Thus, voluntary possession of undersized catfish for commercial purposes is sufficient even if the defendant claims ignorance because the fish were frozen, boxed, or processed.