Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

53 Ohio Misc. 11

State v. Scullen

Akron Municipal Court

Decided April 15, 1977

Akron Municipal Court · decided 1977-04-15

Cited by 4 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1990

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relies on 101 Ohio App. 57 - Abdoney v. Board of Liquor Control

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

George, J.

¶1The court has reviewed the Stipulation of Facts and the legal arguments briefed by counsel.

¶2The facts, in their simplest form, are that the defendants, James D. Seullen, a bartender, was instructed by a man (identified only as Clarence), to give Steve Semuga and Semuga’s friend a drink. The defendant gave Steve Semuga and Semuga’s friend each a beer, and received payment for same from Clarence. There is no dispute that Steve Semuga at the time of this transaction, was in fact intoxicated. The issue revolves around whether or not the delivery of a beer to Steve Semuga and the payment for same by Clarence, is a sale to an intoxicated person and thus a violation of R. C. 4301.22(B). In construing the term “sale,” this court adopts the commonly accepted legal definition of the term. Same includes the delivery of an item for a price, in this case beer.

¶3Since criminal statutes are to be strictly construed and since a sale is composed of both a purchase and a delivery, both elements must be present to constitute a sale within R. C. 4301.22(B). The delivery of a beer without payment *12cannot be said to be a sale under R. C. 4301.22(B). Likewise, the payment without delivery cannot constitute a sale under that section. See Abdoney v. Board of Liquor Control (1955), 101 Ohio App. 57, 135 N. E. 2d 775.

¶4The purchase in this case was made by Clarence. The delivery was made to Steven Semuga. This cannot be said to be, beyond a reasonable doubt, a sale to Steve Semuga, an intoxicated person. Therefore, the defendant’s motion for acquittal is well taken and is granted.

¶5While the instant facts are legally insufficient for a conviction under R. C. 4301.22(B), the furnishing of intoxicating liquor to an intoxicated person may constitute a violation of the rules or regulations of the Department of Liquor Control.

¶6The court therefore being of the opinion that the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law to warrant a conviction of the defendant, James D. Scullen, for the offense of sale of beer to an intoxicated person as set forth in the complaint, this court does hereby enter a judgment of acquittal.

¶7Defendant acquitted.

/53/ohiomisc/11 · .json · Public domain