TOWN OF LAKE PARK
v.
PETRAITIS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A store owner was convicted of permitting the sale of beer to a minor when an unidentified employee sold beer to a 17-year-old without the owner's knowledge or consent, in violation of the owner's express instructions. The circuit court reversed, holding that criminal liability for such a violation requires proof of knowledge, participation, or consent, not merely proof of the illegal sale by an agent.
A store owner cannot be held criminally liable for an employee's sale of alcohol to a minor based merely on the fact that the sale occurred on his premises and in violation of the owner's express instructions. Criminal liability requires proof that the owner knew of, participated in, connived at, or assented to the illegal sale.
“While this court is in full sympathy and accord with the efforts of the authority and the enforcing agencies in rigidly enforcing the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, especially in sales to minors, nevertheless this court is now dealing with a penal rather than a regulatory proposition.”
Establishes the court's distinction between regulatory and penal offenses, supporting heightened requirements for criminal liability.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony Petraitis owned and operated a package store. A white male 17 years of age purchased bottled beer from an unidentified employee at the store. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Construction Of Penal Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from the municipal court of the town of Lake Park, wherein Anthony Petraitis was adjudged guilty of permitting the sale of beer to a minor, in violation of sec. 562.11 (1), Florida Statutes, and fined $100 with an alternate jail sentence.
The evidence before the trial court showed that a white male 17 years of age bought a package of bottled beer at a package store owned and operated by appellant from an unidentified man apparently employed there; that the sale was made without the knowledge, participation or consent of the appellant and, according to his uncontradicted testimony, in violation of his express instructions to his employees against sale to minors. The purchaser was not questioned regarding his age nor requested to produce identification. The record is bare of evidence as to his apparent age.
Counsel for the town of Lake Park contend, in effect, that the failure of appellant’s employee to use reasonable means to determine the age of his customer under the circumstances stated renders appellant subject to a criminal penalty regardless of lack of intent or knowledge. This court cannot agree. The principle involved is illustrated in the case of People of the State of New York v. Teetsel, 177 N.Y.S. 2d 612, where the court said —
“While this court is in full sympathy and accord with the efforts of the authority and the enforcing agencies in rigidly enforcing the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, especially in sales to minors, nevertheless this court is now dealing with a penal rather than a regulatory proposition.
“Certainly justice dictates something more than bare proof of an illegal sale by an agent upon which to predicate a criminal violation against the principal charging that he ‘caused or permitted alcoholic beverages to be delivered to a minor actually under the age of eighteen years.’
“Direct authority on the proposition in question is rather sparse. However, in People v. Utter, 44 Barb. 170, at page 172, the court stated —
‘Where, as in this case, the sale is not made by the defendant personally or in his presence, the presumption of his innocence is not overcome by merely showing that the sale was made on his premises, by his bartender, unless the evidence also shows that the defendant in some manner participated in it, connived at it, or assented to it.’ ”
The judgment and sentence of the municipal court are reversed.