State v. Blue Fox Bar, Inc.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1964
• Docket Number: No. 10091,10091
• Citation: 128 N.W.2d 561,80 S.D. 565
• Parties: STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BLUE FOX BAR, INC., a Corporation, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Page 561

128 N.W.2d 561

80 S.D. 565

STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BLUE FOX BAR, INC., a Corporation, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 10091.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

May 27, 1964.

James E. Doyle, Yankton, for defendant and appellant.

Frank L. Farrar, Atty. Gen., Gary R. Richards, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, Louis B. French, State's Atty., Yankton, for plaintiff and respondent.

HANSON, Judge.

The Blue Fox Bar, Inc., holder of a Class D liquor license in the City of Yankton, was convicted in Municipal Court of (1) permitting a person, or persons, under the age of 21 on the licensed premises, and (2) selling intoxicating liquor to a person, or persons, under the age of 21. Defendant appeals from both convictions.

The Information alleges that the Blue Fox Bar, Inc., on the 24th day of January 1963, in the County of Yankton and State of South Dakota, did unlawfully:

Count 1: Permit a person, or persons, under the age of twenty-one years on the premises where the business under which the license of said corporation is authorized, and not in the company of the parent or guardian of said person, or persons; and

Count 2: Sell intoxicating liquor to a person, or persons, under the age of twenty-one.

The language used in the Information substantially follows the wording of pertinent subsections of SDC 1960 Supp. 5.0226 which contains numerous restrictions on the conduct of business in intoxicating liquor.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in not granting its motion to quash the information and in not sustaining objection to the introduction of evidence thereunder for the reason the name of the person, or persons, upon or against whom the alleged offenses were committed were not set forth or otherwise identified with reasonable certainty. We agree.

Article VI, Section 7 of our Constitution prescribes that 'In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right * * * to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him * * *'. According to SDC 1960 Supp. 34.3010(6) the offense charged in the information must be 'designated in such a manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended' and SDC 1960 Supp. 34.3008 specifically requires that an indictment or information be direct and certain as it regards:

(1) The party charged;

(2) The offense charged;

(3) The name of the thing or person upon or against whom the offense was committed.

The test of the sufficiency of an information under these provisions is whether it apprises a defendant with reasonable certainty of the nature of the accusation against him so that he may prepare his defense and plead the judgment as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. State v. Sinnott, 72 S.D. 100, 30 N.W.2d 455; State v. Wood, 77 S.D. 120, 86 N.W.2d 530; State v. Belt, 79 S.D. 324, 111 N.W.2d 588.

Tested by the foregoing constitutional and statutory requirements the information filed against defendant is deficient. Defendant is a licensed liquor dealer. With the exception of a limited class of persons, such as minors and habitual drunkards, defendant may legally sell intoxicating liquor any may legally allow persons on its licensed premises. With respect to the offenses charged, therefore, the names of the purchaser and the person alleged to have been unlawfully permitted on the premises are essential and should have been alleged in the information. Our conclusion is in accord with State v. Burchard, 4 S.D. 548, 57 N.W. 491, in which a similary worded indictment was declared...