State v. Katz
| Decision Date | 04 February 1937 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. KATZ. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; John Rufus Booth Judge.
Louis Katz was found guilty under an information charging him of violating the Liquor Control Act, and he appeals.
No error.
Emanuel G. Goldstein, of Hartford, for appellant.
Hugh Meade Alcorn, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., of Hartford, for the State.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN JJ.
The information charged that the defendant, a permittee, sold alcoholic liquor to an intoxicated person in violation of section 1071c of the 1935 Cumulative Supplement of the General Statutes. That statute, so far as relevant to the case, provides a penalty to be imposed upon any person holding a permit to sell liquor issued by the liquor control commission who " shall sell or deliver alcoholic liquor to any minor, or to any intoxicated person, or to any habitual drunkard, knowing him to be such an habitual drunkard, or to any person after having received notice from the selectmen, as provided in section 1068c or 1069c, not to sell or give such liquor to such person." The defendant elected to be tried by the court and it found him guilty.
The finding states that while one She was in the defendant's store the defendant sold liquor to him although he was then intoxicated and in an obviously drunken condition. The defendant in his appeal seeks many corrections in and additions to the finding, and also claims that the trial court could not upon all the evidence have reasonably found that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The vital issue is whether the evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that She was intoxicated when the liquor was sold to him. A police officer who saw him before and after he was in the store definitely testified that he was, and as evidencing that fact stated that he staggered and, when he attempted to run, could not do so very well. The trial court was, of course, not bound to give credence to the testimony of the defendant and the one witness he produced that Shea gave no indications of intoxication while in the store. Upon all the evidence the trial court could reasonably reach the conclusion that Shea was intoxicated.
The defendant also claims that it was incumbent upon the State to prove knowledge on his part that Shea was intoxicated when he made the sale to him. The conclusion of the trial court expressed in the finding that Shea was in an obviously drunken condition while in the store was an inference which it could reasonably draw from the evidence as a whole. It was not, however, incumbent upon the State to prove that the defendant did have knowledge of Shea's condition. The phrase in the statute, " knowing him to be such an habitual drunkard," clearly applies only to sales made to an habitual drunkard, and the insertion in the statute of the requirement of proof of knowledge only in such a case leaves no doubt of the legislative intent that knowledge is not an element of the offense as regards sales to intoxicated persons or minors. Barnes v. State, 19 Conn. 398 404; State v. Kinkead, 57 Conn. 173, 180, 17 A. 855; Simmons v. Holcomb, 98 Conn. 770, 776, 120 A. 510. The Legislature has seen fit to place the burden of determining whether or not the purchaser of liquor is intoxicated upon the seller and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hughes
...Conn. 689, 690, 199 A. 125; State v. Koenig, 120 Conn. 39, 44, 178 A. 923; State v. Faro, 118 Conn. 267, 270, 171 A. 660; State v. Katz, 122 Conn. 439, 441, 189 A. 606; State v. Kinkead, 57 Conn. 173, 180, 17 A. 855; State v. Brown, 51 Conn. 1, 4. Barnes v. State, 19 Conn. 397, 404; see als......
-
O'Dell v. Kozee
...state of inebriation. This court first interpreted the term “intoxicated person” as used in General Statutes § 30–86.13State v. Katz, 122 Conn. 439, 189 A. 606 (1937). Section 30–86 provides the criminal counterpart to § 30–102, prescribing a fine and/or term of imprisonment up to one year ......
-
State v. McKenna
...violator to whom the statute was not vague. See State v. Pickering, supra, 180 Conn. 65, 502 A.2d 388; see also State v. Katz, 122 Conn. 439, 442-43, 189 A. 606 (1937) (term "intoxicated person" in statute prohibiting sale of liquor to intoxicated person not so indefinite as to render statu......
-
O'Dell v. Kozee
...of inebriation. This court first interpreted the term ''intoxicated person'' as used in General Statutes § 30-86.13 State v. Katz, 122 Conn. 439, 189 A. 606 (1937). Section 30-86 provides the criminal counterpart to § 30-102, prescribing a fine and/or term of imprisonment up to one year for......