State v. Dahnke

Citation244 Iowa 599,57 N.W.2d 553
Decision Date10 March 1953
Docket NumberNo. 48207,48207
PartiesSTATE v. DAHNKE.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

Robert L. Larson, Atty. Gen., Raphael R. R. Dvorak, Asst. Atty. Gen., William L. Meardon, County Atty., Johnson County, and William M. Tucker, Asst. County Atty., Des Moines, for appellant.

Messer, Hamilton, Cahill & Bartley, Iowa City, for appellee.

HAYS, Justice.

Defendant was indicted, tried and acquitted of violating Section 124.20, Code 1950, I.C.A. The State has appealed under the terms of Section 793.20, Code 1950, I.C.A.

Section 124.20 in part provides: 'It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, give or make available to any minor or to permit any minor to purchase or consume any beer on the premises of a class 'B' or class 'C' permit holder'.

Under the record the jury could have found that the defendant was a bartender in an establishment holding a class 'B' permit. That one William K. Butler, a minor, was sold beer by the defendant which he consumed on the premises with defendant's knowledge. The defendant claimed he believed Butler to be an adult, based upon a draft registration card exhibited to him by Butler. The draft card belonged to another party.

The trial court instructed the jury as follows, in instruction No. 7: 'You are instructed that before you can find the defendant guilty the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and all of the following propositions: * * * (4) That the defendant had knowledge that the said William K. Butler was a minor at said time, or that he was charged with knowledge of such fact and had reasonable grounds to believe that Butler was a minor. * * *' Whether the above quoted division (4) of instruction No. 7 states a correct legal proposition as to the force and effect of Section 124.20, supra, is the sole question presented on this appeal. In short, under Section 124.20, does one who sells beer to an individual, who is in fact a minor, do so at his peril irrespective of what his belief may have been. The state contends that he does.

Chapter 123, Code 1950, I.C.A., entitled 'Iowa Liquor Control Act' was passed at the Ex.Sess. 45th G.A. It specifically excludes beer (under certain conditions) from its definition of alcoholic liquors. What is now Chapter 124, Code 1950, I.C.A., was originally enacted as Chapter 37, Acts 45 G.A. By Chapter 25, Acts 45th Ex.Sess.G.A., this chapter was in effect repealed and our now Chapter 124 was enacted. It is entitled 'Beer and Malt Liquors'. While Chapter 124 does not declare beer to be an intoxicant, it does place some restrictions on the sale thereof, similar in many respects to those governing the sale of alcoholic liquors, under Chapter 123. This it had the right to do. Sawyer v. Botti, 147 Iowa 453, 124 N.W. 787, 27 L.R.A.,N.S., 1007. Accepting the legislative decree that beer is not an alcoholic beverage, we take judicial notice of the fact that, at least when consumed in large quantities, it produces an exhilerating effect upon the consumer. Recognition of this fact may have influenced the legislature in the adoption of Chapter 124. Also, Chapter 123 provided that alcoholic liquors shall be handled exclusively by the 'Iowa Liquor Control Commission to be dispensed solely through state owned stores, in the original packages for off the premises consumption only'. Such dispensing would appear to be impracticable when applied to beer, and it being deemed to be non-alcoholic, its sale and distribution was delegated to the local communities, City, Town and County. Such a system is recognized as a police measure or regulation, relating to a business regarded as requiring substantial restrictions, supervision and control, for the protection of the public welfare and morals. Soursos v. Mason City, 230 Iowa 157, 296 N.W. 807; State v. Talerico, 227 Iowa 1315, 290 N.W. 660.

Section 123.1, Code 1950, I.C.A., states the policy of the chapter to be deemed an exercise of the police power of the state, for the protection of the welfare, health, peace, morals and safety of the people of the state. Chapter 124 contains no statement as to its specific intent or purpose but we think it must be construed with and in the light of Chapter 123, and that the purpose thereof is the same as set forth in Section 123.1.

Section 124.20, simply states 'It shall be unlawful for * * *'. This is a penal statute and while we recognize the rule that such are to be strictly construed, in construing them we should endeavor to give to them such a construction as will carry out the evident intent of the legislature. Kuhn v. Kuhn, 125 Iowa 449, 101 N.W. 151; State v. Hill, Iowa, 57 N.W.2d 58. Nowhere in said section is it stated that knowledge or intent is a necessary element in order to make the act illegal. In State v. Dunn, 202 Iowa 1188, 211 N.W 850, 851, it is said, 'It is quite universally recognized at this day that the Legislature may forbid the doing of an act and make its commission a crime without regard to the intent or knowledge of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • McClellan v. Tottenhoff, 5830
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 28, 1983
    ...persons alone but were wisely intended for the protection of members of the general public as well. See State v. Dahnke, 244 Iowa 599, 603, 57 N.W.2d 553, 556 (Sup.Ct.1953); Waynick v. Chicago's Last Department Store, supra, 269 F.2d 322 at page 325 * * *." Id., 156 A.2d at We hold that bot......
  • Rappaport v. Nichols, A--22
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • November 23, 1959
    ...persons alone but were wisely intended for the protection of members of the general public as well. See State v. Dahnke, 244 Iowa 599, 603, 57 N.W.2d 553, 556 (Sup.Ct.1953); Waynick v. Chicago's Last Department Store, supra, 269 F.2d at page 325; cf. Essex Holding Corp. v. Hock, 136 N.J.L. ......
  • State v. Nelson, 53789
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • June 23, 1970
    ...as a matter of construction from the language of the act, in connection with its manifest purpose and design.' State v. Dahnke, 244 Iowa 599, 603, 57 N.W.2d 553, 555--556; State v. Dobry, 217 Iowa 858, 250 N.W. 702; State v. Schultz, 242 Iowa 1328, 50 N.W.2d 9; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 30, ......
  • State v. Ramos
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 4, 1967
    ...State v. Dunn, supra. See State v. Wharff, 257 Iowa 871, 134 N.W.2d 922; State v. Barry, 255 Iowa 1329, 125 N.W.2d 333; State v. Dahnke, 244 Iowa 599, 57 N.W.2d 553. In other cases we have required proof of intent or guilty knowledge even though absent in the statute. State v. Drummer, The ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT