State v. Rohan, Minn.Ct.App., 7/22/2013. Ms. Rohan served a beer to a patron who was under the age of twenty-one; it said so right on the identification that she showed Ms. Rohan. The cops busted Ms. Rohan for serving alcohol to an underage person. Ms. Rohan moved either to invalidate the statute, Minn.Stat. 340A.503, subd. 2(1) on due process grounds, or to declare that the state had to prove that Ms. Rohan intentionally violated the law. The district court opted for door number two – the state had to prove intentional violation of the law – and the state brought this pretrial appeal.
And won. The statute that prohibits serving alcohol to underage persons is a strict liability crime, at least in Minnesota. It turns out that this prohibition has been on the books for one hundred forty-one years. That was 1872. Before that, a parent of a minor had to run over to the tavern and give the barkeeper written instructions not to serve the kid the next time she shows up wanting a brew and thereafter. In 1877, the state supreme court held that the statute did not require proof of intent. State v. Heck, 23 Minn. 549 (1977). That settles the question here in the twenty-first century. After Heck, the legislature’s many amendments to the statute never included an intent element.
The court also rejects a due process challenge to the absence of an intent requirement.
Chief Judge Johnson dissented.
No comments:
Post a Comment