Opinion ID: 1258122
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Law Surrounding the Indictment

Text: We begin by noting that, from our review of the record, it is apparent that neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel read the statutes relating to the crime of furnishing alcoholic liquors before the jury reached its verdict. The prosecutor mistakenly informed a busy trial judge that beer was the same as alcoholic liquor for the purpose of proving the indictment. [5] Likewise, it is not disputed that when the circuit court asked at the charge conference whether he should instruct the jury on the definition of alcoholic liquor, defense counsel stated that an instruction was not necessary because beer was an alcoholic liquor. [6] The central theme of the trial was whether the defendant committed acts which could be considered as furnishing beer. However, the main issue should have been whether the defendant could be convicted under an indictment charging the furnishing of alcoholic liquor to persons under the age of 21 years when the State could only prove the furnishing of beer. The indictment charged that the defendant violated a provision of Chapter 60 of the West Virginia Code, W.Va.Code, 60-3-22a(b), which prohibits a person from knowingly furnishing alcoholic liquors to persons under the age of 21 years. Specifically, W.Va.Code, 60-3-22a(b) states (with emphasis added): Any person who shall knowingly buy for, give to or furnish to anyone under the age of twenty-one to whom they are not related by blood or marriage, any alcoholic liquors from whatever source, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars or shall be imprisoned in the county jail for a period not to exceed ten days, or both such fine and imprisonment. Chapter 60 has two definitions of alcoholic liquor that, read as a whole, are nearly identical. First, Chapter 60 briefly defines alcoholic liquor by making reference to nonintoxicating beer. W.Va.Code, 60-1-5 [1986] states: For the purposes of this chapter: ... Nonintoxicating beer shall mean any beverage, obtained by the fermentation of barley, malt, hops, or similar products or substitute, and containing not more alcohol than that specified by section [three], article sixteen, chapter eleven.... Alcoholic liquor shall include alcohol, beer, wine and spirits, and any liquid or solid capable of being used as a beverage, but shall not include nonintoxicating beer.... As this statute makes clear (a) alcoholic liquor is not nonintoxicating beer, and (b) the alcohol content of nonintoxicating beer is set forth W.Va.Code, 11-16-3 [1991]. Another part of Chapter 60 provides a similar definition of alcoholic liquor and nonintoxicating beer. W.Va.Code, 60-3-22(a) [1993] [7] states that the meaning of the phrases alcoholic liquors and nonintoxicating beer are to be found by referring to the nonintoxicating beer chapter of the West Virginia Code, Chapter 11specifically, W.Va. Code, 11-16-3. W.Va.Code, 11-16-3(5) states (with emphasis added): Nonintoxicating beer shall mean all cereal malt beverages or products of the brewing industry commonly referred to as beer, lager beer, ale and all other mixtures and preparations produced by the brewing industry, including malt coolers and containing at least one half of one percent alcohol by volume, but not more than four and two-tenths percent of alcohol by weight, or six percent by volume, whichever is greater, all of which are hereby declared to be nonintoxicating and the word liquor as used in chapter sixty of this code shall not be construed to include or embrace nonintoxicating beer nor any of the beverages, products, mixtures or preparations included within this definition. This statute, too, makes it clear that the Legislature intended for nonintoxicating beer and liquor to be treated differently in Chapter 60 of the W.Va.Code, and makes it clear that alcoholic liquors have more alcohol content than nonintoxicating beers. Reading these statutory definitions in light of the evidence produced at trial, it is clear that there is no evidence that the defendant made alcoholic liquors available to his daughter's underage guests. At oral argument before this Court, the State conceded that it failed to produce evidence that the Coors Lightthe only beverage that the defendant was alleged to have furnished to his daughter's under-aged guestshad the alcohol content required to render it an alcoholic liquor. Moreover, at oral argument the State confessed error, said the defendant was indicted under the wrong statute, and agreed that the defendant should have been indicted for furnishing nonintoxicating beer under a completely different statute, W.Va.Code, 11-16-19(c) [2005]. [8] Nevertheless, the State argues that any error in charging the defendant with violating the wrong statute was waived, because defense counsel never raised this objection before the jury returned its verdict. The State noted that defense counsel also had agreed in the charge conference that beer was alcoholic liquor and told the circuit court that there was no issue there. The State further asserts that the defendant invited error by telling the circuit court that it was not necessary to instruct the jury on the definition of alcoholic liquor because beer was alcohol. As previously noted, based upon bad information from both the prosecutor and defense counsel, the trial judge instructed the jury that they could find the defendant guilty if he knowingly furnished beer to the persons at the party. The State therefore argues that the trial court's instructions were proper because they adequately conveyed the essence of the crime. B.