In re Jennings8/23/2004
on rather than punishment or correction." ' " **915 (Jorge M., supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 872, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 466, 4 P.3d 297.) The light penalties for violating section 25658(a) strongly suggest the Legislature has dispensed with any requirement that the People prove knowledge or some other criminal intent.
Petitioner argues section 25658(a) must be interpreted to require knowledge of age despite any explicit statutory requirement, citing Brockett v. Kitchen Boyd Motor Co. (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 87, 100 Cal.Rptr. 752. Brockett concerned civil, not criminal, liability. In passing, it stated about section 25658(a): "If one wilfully disobeys the law and knowingly furnishes liquor to a minor with knowledge that the minor is going to drive a vehicle on the public highways, as alleged in this case, he must face the consequences." (Brockett, supra, at p. 93, 100 Cal.Rptr. 752, italics added.) Not addressed in Brockett is whether one must face the same consequences absent such intent or knowledge. An opinion, of course, is not authority for propositions not considered. (Flannery v. Prentice (2001) 26 Cal.4th 572, 581, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 809, 28 P.3d 860.) In any event, Brockett relied extensively on Vesely v. Sager (1971) 5 Cal.3d 153, 95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 486 P.2d 151, which subsequently was statutorily overruled. (See Bus. & Prof.Code, § 25602, subd. (c); Civ.Code, § 1714, subd. (b).)
More on point is Provigo Corp. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd., supra, 7 Cal.4th at page 569, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 638, 869 P.2d 1163, where this court held as to seller-licensees that "the laws against sales to minors [citing Cal. Const., art. XX, § 22; Bus. & Prof.Code, § 25658(a) ] can be violated despite the seller's (or its ***656 agents') lack of knowledge of the purchaser's minority." Provigo, then, at least suggests section 25658(a) also does not require proof of knowledge or intent by other persons who provide alcohol to underage persons. We conclude that to obtain a conviction under section 25658(a), the People need not prove the offender knew the person to whom he or she furnished, sold or gave an alcoholic beverage was in fact not yet 21 years old.
*270 2. Section 25658(c)
Whether subdivision (c) of section 25658 dispenses with a proof of knowledge requirement is a more complex question. Unlike with subdivision (a), three factors mentioned in Jorge M., supra, 23 Cal.4th at page 873, 98 Cal.Rptr.2d 466, 4 P.3d 297--the legislative history and context of the statute, the severity of the punishment, and the seriousness of the harm to the public--have substantial application in the analysis for subdivision (c). Nevertheless, we similarly conclude the People need not prove knowledge or intent to establish a violation of subdivision (c).
First and foremost, the legislative history of section 25658(c) strongly suggests the Legislature intended to impose guilt without a showing the offender knew the age of the person for whom alcohol was purchased. As discussed, ante, section 25658(c) was an amendment to the existing statute, responding to an incident in Santa Cruz County in which someone over 21 years old purchased alcoholic beverages for an underage person who thereafter became intoxicated and crashed his car, killing three minors. As originally proposed, Assembly Bill No.2029 would have proscribed "furnish[ing]" an alcoholic beverage to a "minor" if the minor then caused death or great bodily injury. This original version of the bill made the new crime punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor, commonly called a wobbler. (Assem. Bill No.2029 (1997-1998 Reg. Sess.) as introduced Feb. 18, 1998.) The bill was amended in the Assembly to substitute the phrase "purchasing ... for" in the place of "furnishing ... to." The amendment also deleted r
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|