238 Ga. 95, 230 S.E.2d 853 (1976)
Van Howell was convicted in the Superior Court of Echols County for possessing a firearm in violation of regulations promulgated by the Department of Natural Resources as their No. 391-4-2-.05.1
The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the underlying legislation authorizing the Department to promulgate such rules.2 The Act provided that any person or corporation who shall violate any of the rules or regulations promulgated by the commission shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished as provided by law.3 This provision appears in Ga. L. 1955, pp. 483, 491 (Code Ann. § 45-116).4
The trial court overruled the defendant’s attack upon the count of the indictment charging him with possession of firearms on a management area.5 The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the judgment of the trial court.6
Whether the 1955 legislation unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to an executive commission by making violation of any regulation a misdemeanor?7
A statute will be held unconstitutional as an improper delegation of legislative power if it is incomplete as legislation.8 Such a statute authorizes an executive board to decide what shall and what shall not be an infringement of the law.9 Any statute which leaves the authority to a ministerial officer to define the thing to which the statute is to be applied is invalid.10
Yes. The 1955 Act delegates to the commission the authority to make rules or regulations the violation of which should constitute a misdemeanor.11 This renders the statute incomplete as legislation because it contains no limiting language tying the regulations to crimes already declared by the General Assembly.12 The facts establish that Van Howell was convicted for possessing a firearm under a Department of Natural Resources regulation promulgated pursuant to this authority.13
The delegation therefore authorizes an executive board to decide what conduct shall constitute an infringement of the law.14
That part of the Act of 1955 found in Code Ann. § 45-116 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority in violation of Art. III, Sec. I, Par. I of the Georgia Constitution.15
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Jordan And Ingram
Justice Hill dissented from the majority's holding that the delegation was unconstitutional, and he was joined by Justices Jordan and Ingram.16 This case presents again the years-old controversy: Can the General Assembly delegate law-making authority, in this case crime-making authority, to experts in the executive branch of government?17 Justice Hill argued that the General Assembly should be able to delegate such responsibility to the Board of Commissioners of the Department of Natural Resources which has available the recommendations of the department’s game management specialists and field personnel.18
In his view, approving the legislative limits prescribed in Code Ann. §§ 45-114, 45-115 would uphold the validity of Code Ann. § 45-116 and allow the department to meet the desires of the people to preserve and enjoy wildlife without overburdening the legislature.19