Opinion
No. 208.
March 4, 1946.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Sani-Pine Corporation was convicted under two counts charging that it unlawfully delivered for shipment and shipped in interstate commerce a quantity of fungicide which was adulterated and misbranded, and it appeals.
Affirmed.
Defendant filed a demurrer to the information on the ground that it failed to allege that the prohibited acts were done wilfully or knowingly. The demurrer having been overruled, defendant withdrew its plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty to counts 1 and 2. It then moved in arrest of judgment on the same grounds it had previously urged on demurrer. The court denied the motion and entered a judgment finding defendant $100 on each of counts 1 and 2 without costs. On the motion of the United States, the court dismissed the other counts.
Count 1 alleges that on or about October 18, 1944, the defendant unlawfully delivered for shipment and shipped in interstate commerce a quantity of an article labelled and known as "Sani-Pine," "a fungicide within the meaning of the Act of Congress approved April 26, 1910, 36 Stat. 331, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 121-134, and was then and there adulterated within the meaning of the said Act of Congress in that said product's strength or purity falls below the standard of quality under which it was sold." Count 2 alleges that on the same date the defendant unlawfully delivered for shipment and shipped in interstate commerce a quantity of an article labelled and known as "Sani-Pine," "a fungicide within, the meaning of the Act and was then and there misbranded within the meaning of said Act in that the statements * * * borne on the labels affixed to the wrappers and bottles containing the product are false and misleading and serve to deceive and mislead the purchaser."
Aaron Nussbaum, of New York City, for appellant.
T. Vincent Quinn, U.S. Atty. for Eastern District of New York, of Brooklyn, N.Y. (Vine H. Smith, Maurice Z. Bungard, and Mario Pittoni, all of Brooklyn, N.Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Before SWAN, CLARK and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Defendant argues that the information stated no crime because it did not charge the corporation with "knowingly" or "wilfully" committing the acts. But this statute does not require proof of any awareness of wrongdoing. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277, 280-281, 64 S. Ct. 134, 88 L.Ed. 48. In any event, an information pleading in the words of the statute is sufficient. United States v. Groopman, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 782, 785-786; cf, United States v. Leiner, 2 Cir., 143 F.2d 298, 300.
See also United States v. Johnson, 221 U.S. 488, 497-498, 31 S.Ct. 627, 55 L.Ed. 823; United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 42 S.Ct. 301, 66 L.Ed. 604.
Affirmed.