TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote:

LSL wrote:Houston Alley Theater has AN INCORRECTLY phrased 30.06 notice, in English only, printed on each ticket in tiny print. [EDITED 10:14 pm21 May - See my comment below]
THIS IS NOT sufficient NOR EFFECTIVE notice!
Does it also need to be printed in Spanish?

My opinion is that you would be arrested on the basis that you have received notice by way of notification in the form of a card or other document (ticket). You might be even convicted depending on the judge and his interpretation of the work 'identical'.

The statute is very specific, the notice must be written with specific language identical to the wording in the statute. Your basis for appeal would be that the language is not identical, if what you say is true about it being incorrectly phrased. Many times when the lawmakers intend for it to be similar to but not identical to they will state something like "...including substantially the same language..." or "similar to". I've seen examples of both.

The appellate court will certainly consider whether or not the state legislature knew how to say what they mean, whether the word 'identical' is superfluous, and if not why the court should not accept that identical means identical, and whether or not the miswritten language is a clerical error or actually incorrectly and non-identically written language. This is where the principle of 'de minimus' comes into play; a principle where the court disregards the issue due to it being a trivial, non-significant matter.

For example, I feel certain that an appellate court will find that the wording "...pursuant to section 30.60" is a clerical typographical error and de minimis. However, a sign similar to the one at Grapevine Mills Mall which states "...licensed under Article 4413 (29ee) revised statutes..." will likely be much more scrutinized in favor of the defendant since it is clearly antiquated in it's reference, and thus possibly signifying the sign is intentionally referring to the other rule. Who knows. However they could also take a de minimus attitude about that, although I think that is much less likely. My feeling is that when words and precise as 'identical' are used in statutory language and are interpreted under the current canons and tenets of statutory interpretation, that there is a heavy burden for the state to wiggle out of it. Otherwise 'identical' would lose its purpose in the wording and essentially any wording could suffice and we would have no standard for notice, and would be clearly antithetical to the intent of the legislature when they wrote the statute and included the word 'identical'.

The 30.06 statute regarding the specifications of cards, documents, or signs is written to the person serving notice. The court would have to hold that rather than 'identical' language being required, that only 'substantially similar' language is required. With a word as precise and unambiguous as 'identical' that would be hard to justify especially at the appellate level where legality of process and application of law is what is tested. However there is plenty of case law where de minimus played a role in the rulings of the court. Try searching on some of those for plenty of interesting reading.

By the way, the requirement for Spanish only applies only to signage according to 30.06. And, I would think that 'identical' and 'Spanish' would hold equal weight as prima facie elements of the statute, in a case where improper wording or lack of wording is at issue.

tex