Court Opinion

ID: 9751296
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 16:20:05.261125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:42.357427
License: Public Domain

*148Dissenting Opinion by
Spaeth, J.:
I agree with Judge Hoffman that the failure of appellants’ employees to demand identification from the minors cannot provide the basis for an inference that the appellants themselves failed to instruct the employees to require the identification.
In addition, it is my view that the indictments should have specifically charged the culpable commission of the liquor offenses. The Crimes Code, §305 (b) (2), 18 Pa.C.S. §305 (b) (2), provides, in the conjunctive, that culpable commission “may be charged and proved” (emphasis added). To be sure, if a defendant is indicted for what would , otherwise be a summary offense, the fact of indictment would give him notice that the Commonwealth is seeking a misdemeanor conviction. Nonetheless, he should not be left to guess at the level of culpability the Commonwealth will attempt to establish.
The majority apparently relies on §302 (h) of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. §302 (h), to support its view that culpable commission need not be charged. (See majority opinion at 146 and n.5). Section 302(h) provides in relevant part as follows: “Neither knowledge nor recklessness or negligence as to whether conduct constitutes an offense ... is an element of such offense . . .” (emphasis added).
The issue in appellants’ case, however, is not whether they knew or should have known that their conduct was illegal; rather it is whether they did what they did negligently. Consequently, §302 (h) is inapplicable.