2000 Pa. Super. 242 - Commonwealth v. Lawson

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2020

8 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

McEWEN, President Judge,

¶1concurring and dissenting:

¶2¶ 1 While I agree with the decision of the majority as to the insufficiency of the evidence to establish disorderly conduct, I must dissent from the conclusion of the majority that an individual under the age of 21 can be criminally liable for providing intoxicants to another minor. The majority decision in Kapres v. Heller, 417 Pa.Super. 371, 612 A.2d 987, 989-90 (1992), affirmed, 536 Pa. 551, 640 A.2d 888 (1994), specifically addressed this issue from a civil liability perspective and, despite a fervent dissenting expression of the contrary view by Judge Beck5, I agree with the rationale of the majority, and would, therefore, discharge appellant upon the charge of providing intoxicants to another minor.

¶3. Judge Beck noted in her dissent:

... I find particularly inexplicable and disturbing the majority's reasoning on page 5 regarding the criminal liability of underage drinkers and those who would facilitate their crime by furnishing them with intoxicants. The majority states:

The legal drinking age in Pennsylvania is 21 years of age, and pursuant to the Crimes Code a person under 21 commits a summary offense if he attempts to purchase, purchases, consumes or possesses. 18 Pa.C.S. § 6308. When interpreting and applying this section of the Code, the Pennsylvania Courts have steadfastly maintained those persons under 21 years of age are minors and incompetent to handle the effects of liquor. Congini, supra; 18 Pa.C.S. § 6308. We disagree with appellant’s contention appellees are adults, as defined by Rule 76, and, therefore, can be found criminally liable under section 6308.

¶4Majority opinion at page 4.

¶5Kapres v. Heller, supra, 612 A.2d at 995.