## Facts

- Williams was a commercial truck driver.
- Williams drove to the Cold Creek Fish Company to pick up a shipment of fish for delivery.
- Cold Creek’s employees loaded 63 boxes of fish onto Williams’s truck.
- Each box weighed about 100 pounds, and the fish in the boxes were packed in ice.
- Williams did not open, inspect, or otherwise examine the contents of the boxes.
- The shipping papers given to Williams described the load only as “2500 cat,” without stating fish size or whether the fish met legal length limits.
- While Williams was transporting the load, a state game official stopped the truck and inspected the shipment.
- The official found that 25 of the boxes contained catfish that were shorter than the minimum legal length.
- Williams was charged with 25 counts of illegally possessing undersized catfish under a strict-liability statute that required only physical possession, not intent or knowledge.
- Williams was convicted on 3 counts; the remaining 22 counts were stayed while he appealed.
- On appeal, Williams argued he could not be held criminally liable because he did not know, and could not have known, that the sealed shipment included undersized fish.

## Issues

1. Whether a strict-liability statute prohibiting possession of undersized fish applies to a commercial truck driver who transports sealed boxes for another and lacks knowledge and a reasonable opportunity to discover the fish are illegal.
2. Whether “possession” for this offense includes a carrier’s temporary, custodial control of a shipment in transit when the carrier did not inspect and had no practical means to determine compliance.

## Decision

- The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed Williams’s convictions.
- The court concluded the statute was not intended to impose criminal liability on an innocent carrier whose control was limited to transporting sealed containers and who lacked knowledge and a realistic chance to detect the violation.
- Because the convictions were reversed, the stayed counts premised on the same shipment could not proceed on the theory that mere carriage established unlawful possession.

## Legal Principles

- Even in regulatory offenses framed without an intent element, courts may read statutory terms in context to avoid applying criminal punishment to conduct the legislature likely did not mean to reach.
- For a “possession” offense involving regulated goods, physical custody alone may be insufficient when the defendant is a commercial carrier transporting sealed or iced-over containers and lacks knowledge and a reasonable opportunity to discover the illegal condition.
- Strict-liability fish and game provisions are generally aimed at people in a position to control compliance (such as those who take, process, pack, buy, or sell the fish), not neutral carriers who merely move a load prepared and sealed by others.

## Conclusion

State v. Williams held that a truck driver’s temporary custody of sealed fish boxes during delivery did not constitute punishable “possession” of undersized catfish where the driver lacked knowledge of the illegality and had no reasonable means to discover it, so the court reversed his strict-liability convictions.


State v. Williams, 115 N.E.2d 36 (1952)