State v. Beaudry
Decision Date | 03 April 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 83-1783-CR,83-1783-CR |
Parties | STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Janet BEAUDRY, Agent, Sohn Manufacturing Company, d/b/a Village Green Tavern, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Gregory J. Paradise, Madison, argued, for defendant-appellant-petitioner; Mohs, MacDonald & Widder, Madison, on briefs.
Michael R. Klos, Asst. Atty. Gen., argued, for plaintiff-respondent; Bronson C. La Follette, Atty. Gen., on brief.
This is a review of a published decision of the court of appeals, State v. Beaudry, 119 Wis.2d 96, 349 N.W.2d 106 (Ct.App.1984), affirming a judgment of conviction by the Circuit Court for Sheboygan county, John Bolgert, Circuit Judge. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment, and we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.
The jury found the defendant, Janet Beaudry, the agent designated by the corporation pursuant to sec. 125.04(6)(a), Stats.1981-82, of the alcoholic beverage laws, 1 guilty of the misdemeanor of unlawfully remaining open for business after 1:00 a.m. in violation of sec. 125.68(4)(c), which prohibits premises having a "Class B" license from remaining open between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. 2 The tavern manager, not the defendant personally, had kept the tavern open, giving drinks to friends, contrary to his instructions of employment. On the basis of the judgment the defendant was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $200.00. 3
The defendant raises two issues on appeal: (1) whether the statutes impose vicarious criminal liability on the designated agent of a corporate licensee for the conduct of a corporate employee who violates sec. 125.68(4)(c), Stats. 1981-82, and (2) whether there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict in the case. Before we discuss these two issues, we shall set forth the facts.
The facts are undisputed. The defendant, Janet Beaudry, and her husband, Wallace Beaudry, are the sole shareholders of Sohn Manufacturing Company, a corporation which has a license to sell alcoholic beverages at the Village Green Tavern in the village of Elkhart Lake, Sheboygan county. Janet Beaudry is the designated agent for the corporate licensee pursuant to sec. 125.04(6)(a), Stats.1981-82.
Janet Beaudry's conviction grew out of events occurring during the early morning hours of February 9, 1983. At approximately 3:45 a.m., a deputy sheriff for the Sheboygan County Sheriff's Department drove past the Village Green Tavern. He stopped to investigate after noticing more lights than usual inside the building and also seeing two individuals seated inside. As he approached the tavern, he heard music, saw an individual standing behind the bar, and saw glasses on the bar. Upon finding the tavern door locked, the deputy sheriff knocked and was admitted by Mark Witkowski, the tavern manager. The tavern manager and two men were the only persons inside the bar. All three were drinking. The deputy sheriff reported the incident to the Sheboygan County district attorney's office for a formal complaint.
At about noon on February 9, the tavern manager reported to Wallace Beaudry about the deputy's stop earlier that morning. After further investigation Wallace Beaudry discharged the tavern manager on February 11.
On March 2, 1983, the Sheboygan County Sheriff's Department served the defendant with a summons and a complaint charging her with the crime of keeping the tavern open after hours contrary to sec. 125.68(4)(c), Stats., and sec. 125.11(1), Stats. The tavern manager was not arrested or charged with an offense arising out of this incident.
The case was tried before a jury on May 20, 1983. At trial Janet Beaudry testified that she was not present at the tavern the morning of February 9. Wallace Beaudry testified that Janet Beaudry had delegated to him, as president of Sohn Manufacturing, the responsibilities of business administration associated with the Village Green Tavern; that he had hired Mark Witkowski as manager; that he had informed Witkowski that it was his duty to abide by the liquor laws; and that he never authorized Witkowski to remain open after 1:00 a.m., to throw a private party for his friends, or to give away liquor to friends.
Witkowski testified that he had served drinks after hours to two men. During cross-examination Witkowski confirmed that Wallace Beaudry had never authorized him to stay open after hours; that he had been instructed to close the tavern promptly at the legal closing time; that he knew it was illegal to serve liquor after 1:00 a.m. to anyone, including friends; that his two friends drank at the bar before 1:00 a.m. and had paid for those drinks; that he was having a good time with his friends before closing hours and wanted to continue partying and conversing with them after 1 a.m.; that after closing hours he was simply using the tavern to have a private party for two friends; that he did not charge his friends for any of the liquor they drank after 1:00 a.m.; and that by staying open he was trying to benefit not Wallace Beaudry but himself.
At the close of evidence, the jury was instructed that the law required the premises to be closed for all purposes between 1:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. and that if the jury found that there were patrons or customers on the premises after 1:00 a.m., it must find the premises open contrary to statute.
The jury was also instructed regarding Janet Beaudry's liability for the conduct of the tavern manager: As designated agent of the corporation, the defendant had full authority over the business and would be liable for the tavern manager's violation of the closing hour statute if he was acting within the scope of his employment. The instructions, which are pattern instructions Wis.J.I.Cr. 440 (1966), describe what activities are within the scope of employment and what are outside the scope of employment. Specifically, the jury was instructed as follows regarding the defendant's liability for the conduct of the tavern manager:
Having been so instructed, the jury returned a verdict of guilty.
In light of the facts and these instructions, we consider first the question of whether the statutes impose vicarious criminal liability on a designated agent for the illegal conduct of the tavern manager in this case, i.e., remaining open after 1:00 a.m.
The state's prosecution of the defendant under the criminal laws rests on a theory of vicarious liability, that is respondeat superior. Under this theory of liability, the master (here the designated agent) is liable for the illegal conduct of the servant (here the tavern manager). 4 The defendant asserts, contrary to the position of the state, that the statutes do not impose vicarious criminal liability on her as designated agent of the corporation for the tavern manager's illegal conduct.
While the focus in this case is on the defendant's vicarious criminal liability, it is helpful to an understanding of vicarious liability to compare it with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Stoehr
...asserts that we need not address the due process issue because the defendant did not receive a prison sentence. In State v. Beaudry, 123 Wis.2d 40, 59, 365 N.W.2d 593 (1985), the court did not address the constitutional question when the penalty imposed was a fine, not imprisonment, saying ......
-
Hibma v. Odegaard
...role as employee, even though there was evidence the acts were done solely for the private purpose of the employee. State v. Beaudry, 123 Wis.2d 40, 365 N.W.2d 593 (1985). In addition, I do not believe it makes any difference whether the 1977 or 1983 version of the indemnity statute applies......
-
Schimpf v. Gerald, Inc.
...act of the employee the employer can be vicariously liable if the employee acted within the scope of employment. See State v. Beaudry, 123 Wis.2d 40, 365 N.W.2d 593 (1985); Bergman v. Hendrickson, 106 Wis. 434, 435, 82 N.W. 304 (1900) ("It was his method of performing the duty delegated to ......
- State v. Douglas