## Facts

- Federal authorities collected and tested samples of candy manufactured by Triangle Candy Company.
- The United States charged Triangle Candy Company and its officer, Bernard G. Kennepohl, with introducing adulterated candy into interstate commerce in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
- The information included seven counts alleging adulteration based on (1) preparation, packing, or holding under insanitary conditions and (2) for counts II–VII, that the candy was filthy or otherwise unfit for food.
- The defendants made a timely written request for portions of the collected samples under the FDCA’s sampling provision, which contemplates delivering part of a collected sample to the owner upon request.
- The government failed to furnish requested portions for the samples underlying counts III, IV, VI, and VII.
- A jury convicted both defendants on counts II through VII; the court imposed fines on each defendant, with some fines ordered to run concurrently.
- Defendants appealed, arguing that the failure to provide sample portions required reversal on the affected counts.

## Issues

1. Whether the FDCA’s requirement to provide a portion of an official sample to the owner upon request is a condition precedent to a criminal prosecution for adulteration.
2. Whether convictions based on samples not furnished to defendants upon request must be reversed without a showing of actual prejudice to the defense.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions on all counts.
- The court held that the FDCA sampling provision is directory and does not create a jurisdictional bar or condition precedent to prosecution.
- The court found no basis to reverse absent a showing that the defendants were actually prejudiced by the government’s failure to provide portions of the samples.
- The court considered the sampling argument despite concurrent fines because invalid counts could affect the judgment’s validity.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory directive that officials provide part of a collected sample to the owner upon request does not, without explicit statutory language, require dismissal of a criminal prosecution for noncompliance.
- Procedural noncompliance with a statutory sampling provision does not warrant reversal when the defendants can challenge the government’s analysis through trial mechanisms (including cross-examination) and cannot show actual prejudice.
- In construing enforcement provisions in a public-welfare statute governing adulterated food, courts will not infer a prosecution bar from procedural omissions unless Congress clearly required that remedy.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the FDCA’s sample-sharing requirement, though protective of owners, is not a prerequisite to prosecution; noncompliance does not invalidate a conviction absent demonstrated prejudice, so the adulteration convictions and fines were affirmed.


Triangle Candy Co. v. United States, 144 F.2d 195 (9th Cir. 1944)