421 U.S. 658 (1975)
Acme Markets, Inc., a national retail food chain with approximately 36,000 employees, 874 retail outlets, and warehouses including one in Baltimore, maintained its headquarters in Philadelphia where respondent John R. Park served as president and chief executive officer.1
In a five-count information filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the Government charged both Acme and Park with violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act arising from food shipped in interstate commerce and held for sale in the Baltimore warehouse under conditions that allowed rodent access and contamination.2 Acme pleaded guilty to all counts while Park pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.3
The Government's evidence included testimony from an FDA consumer safety officer who described rodent infestation and insanitary conditions observed during a twelve-day inspection of the Baltimore warehouse in November and December 1971.4 A March 1972 reinspection found some improvement yet still detected rodent activity and rodent-contaminated food items.5 The Chief of Compliance of the FDA's Baltimore office had sent Park a letter dated January 27, 1972, detailing the violations, and Acme's Baltimore division vice president testified about remedial steps taken after both inspections.6
Park was the sole defense witness and described the company's organizational structure under which he delegated normal operating duties, including sanitation, to subordinates while retaining responsibility for broad principles of operation.7 He testified that after receiving the January 1972 letter he conferred with the vice president for legal affairs, who reported that the Baltimore division vice president was investigating and would take corrective action, and that Park believed nothing more could have been done constructively.8 On cross-examination Park conceded that he bore responsibility for sanitary conditions throughout the company, admitted receiving an April 1970 FDA letter concerning insanitary conditions at Acme's Philadelphia warehouse, and acknowledged that the same individuals handled sanitation for both locations.9
The jury convicted Park on all five counts and the district court imposed a fine of fifty dollars on each count.10 The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.11 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.12
Whether the jury instructions in the prosecution of a corporate officer under § 301(k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act were appropriate under United States v. Dotterweich?13
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act imposes criminal liability on corporate officers who have a responsible relation to a violation because they possess authority and responsibility to prevent or correct the prohibited condition.14 Jury instructions are appropriate if they focus the jury on whether the defendant had such authority and failed to exercise it rather than on corporate position alone.15
Yes. The trial court's instructions, when read as a whole, required the jury to find that respondent Park had a responsible relation to the situation and by virtue of his position had authority and responsibility to deal with the unsanitary conditions in the Baltimore warehouse.16 This standard was applied to the established facts that Park as chief executive officer received the January 1972 FDA letter detailing rodent infestation, delegated sanitation duties to subordinates including the same individuals responsible for the Philadelphia warehouse, conceded ultimate responsibility for sanitary conditions throughout the company, and acknowledged that the system for handling sanitation was not working perfectly after the prior 1970 warning.17
The jury instructions were appropriate under the standard established in Dotterweich.18
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Mr. Justice Marshall And Mr. Justice Powell
Justice Stewart dissented because the instructions amounted to a mere tautology.19 They told the jury to convict if it found the defendant responsible without providing any objective standard of conduct such as common-law negligence.20 The jury was left to apply its own notions of accountability instead of the law as declared by the court.21
This departure from the division of functions between judge and jury rendered the conviction invalid even though the penalty was light.22
Whether evidence of a prior FDA warning letter regarding insanitary conditions at another warehouse was admissible?23
Evidence of a prior FDA warning letter is admissible when it rebuts the defendant's testimony that he justifiably relied on subordinates to maintain sanitary conditions.24 The evidence demonstrates that the defendant was on notice of deficiencies in his delegation system.
Yes. The April 1970 FDA letter concerning the Philadelphia warehouse was properly admitted.25 Park's defense testimony that he had great confidence in his subordinates and did everything possible after the 1972 letter created a need for rebuttal evidence.26 The evidence showed he had been placed on notice that the same individuals responsible for both locations had previously failed to prevent insanitary conditions.27 This undermined his claim of reasonable reliance on the delegation system.28
The evidence of the prior FDA warning letter was admissible.29