People v. Baker

By information filed by the district attorney of Humboldt County it was charged as follows: ‘ ‘ That the said defendant Peter Baker, did then and there, to wit: in said certain saloon, barroom and place in said city of Eureka, county of Humboldt, state of California, on said 23rd day of December, 1917, willfully, knowingly and unlaw

Tried by a jury the verdict was guilty as charged in the information and defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of three hundred dollars and in default of payment to serve imprisonment in the county jail for the period of one day for each two dollars of said fine until the same be paid or satisfied. Defendant appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.

The following quotation from defendant’s opening brief will obviate the necessity of stating at length the testimony: “There was sufficient evidence introduced to justify the jury in believing that the defendant sold the two bottles of beer to Prank Mahan, and that Prank Mahan was over the age of eighteen and under the age of twenty-one; therefore I do not propose to question those facts. There was sufficient evidence introduced to justify the jury in believing that Prank Mahan was a person likely to become addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors, or who was leading or in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life; therefore I do not propose to question that fact. I make no attack on the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, and I shall treat these three facts as abundantly established by the evidence. However, I do propose to question the proposition that there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury that the act of the defendant in selling these two bottles of beer to Prank Mahan caused or tended to cause Prank Mahan to become or remain a person who was leading or in danger of leading an idle, dissolute, lewd, or immoral life, or a person who was likely to become addicted to the use of intoxicating liquor. In doing so I shall refer only to the evidence introduced by the

The argument that as matter of law the evidence was insufficient to justify the conviction is based upon the following propositions: 1. That the sale of beer to Prank Mahan, a person over the age of eighteen and under the age of twenty-one, was lawful under the state liquor law, to wit, section 397b of the Penal Code; 2. The act of selling the beer, in and of itself a lawful act, could only become unlawful under the juvenile court law if it caused or tended to cause Prank Mahan to become a delinquent; 3. The sale of beer to Mahan did not cause or tend to cause him to become or remain a delinquent for the reason that he did not consume even the smallest portion of the beer.

Defendant’s attorney contends that because section 397b of the Penal Code makes it a crime to sell intoxicating liquor to a person under the age of eighteen years, there is an implied right given and it is perfectly lawful to sell such liquor to any person over the age of eighteen years, and hence the Juvenile Court Act cannot be given effect without holdihg that it works the repeal of section 397b. Section 21 of the juvenile court law (Stats. 1915, p. 1246) -provides that “Any person who shall commit any act or omit the performance of any duty, which act or omission causes or tends to cause or encourage any person under the age of twenty-one years to come within the provisions of any of subdivisions 1 to 13 inclusive of section one of this act, or which act or omission contributes thereto, . . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. ...”

There is no conflict between the two statutes nor are they irreconcilable. The section of the Penal Code is intended to reach specific offenses, to wit, sales of intoxicating liquors to minors under the age of eighteen years. The Juvenile Court Act is designed to protect all persons under the age of twenty-one years from suffering the consequences of any act which causes or tends to cause or encourages such persons to become addicted to the use of intoxicating liquor or to lead idle, dissolute, or immoral lives. If under certain circumstances - it may reasonably be held that selling intoxicating liquor to any person under the age of twenty-one years might or would have such tendency, the act of selling such liquor comes clearly within the statute and is punishable as a misdemeanor. That

In the case of the sale of intoxicating liquor to a person under the age of eighteen, the sale alone, regardless of its consequences, constitutes the crime under section 397b of the Penal Code. But where the sale might not of itself alone constitute the offense denounced by the Juvenile Court Act, the act must be accompanied by circumstances tending to. show that it would cause the minor to lead an immoral, idle, or dissolute life. When these circumstances sufficiently appear, an offense is made out different from that referred to in section 397b of the Penal Code and may be punished under the Juvenile Court Act. As we understand defendant’s position, he concedes that such is the law. It is urged, however, that the facts in this case show that the consequences .contemplated by the Juvenile Court Act by the sale charged could not have followed, nor could the sale have had any tendency to cause the prosecuting witness, Mahan, to lead an idle, dissolute, or immoral life for the simple reason that he did not even taste of the beer; that all he did was to purchase the two bottles of beer and pass them over to witness McKay immediately after leaving defendant’s saloon. If this was all that appeared, it might well be doubted whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

Defendant relies much upon expressions of the court in deciding the case of People v. De Leon, 35 Cal. App. 467 , [ 170 Pac. 173 ], in which it is stated that the act or omission of the defendant must amount to “the breach of a definite duty, and is of such nature and tendency as to affect directly the welfare of such minor.” Also reliance is placed upon expressions in People v. Bergotini, 172 Cal. 717 , [ 158 Pac. 198 ], wherein it was said: “The statute must have contemplated some offense having not merely a possible, but an inevitable, effect upon the minor. ’ ’ Again, ‘ If this information were to be upheld, it would be impossible to foresee what application juries might make of this law to persons having some remote possible connection with the delinquency or dependency of minors.”

These observations of the court must be read in connection with the facts of the cases.

Where the court, in the Bergotini case, speaks of an “inevitable effect” which the act must have, the context shows that what is meant is that it is not sufficient to show that the act might have “some remote possible connection with the delinquency or dependency of the minor.” We do not think the court intended to hold, nor do we think it should be held, that the effect of the act complained of must have an absolutely certain and unmistakable tendency to cause the minor to lead an idle, dissolute, or immoral life. The jury, in interpreting the facts, may apply the teachings of human experience. It is common knowledge that minors are susceptible to harmful influences more readily than are adults; that their power to resist such influences and to discriminate between good and evil or to comprehend the subtle effect which yielding to temptation may have upon their lives is much less. The laws of all civilized nations recognize the deficiencies pf minors in respect of their mental and moral faculties and have thrown around them the protection which their imma-, ture years demand. These laws have always been given the most liberal construction in effectuating their object. The juvenile court law is one of the more modem devices of our reformatory statutes calculated to conserve and strengthen the moral forces of our youths and to protect them from the dangers and follies attending their immaturity.

The concrete question here is whether or not it may reasonably be said that the sale of beer to this boy, Mahan, in view of his character and habits and associates, would tend to cause him to lead or continue to lead an idle, dissolute, and immoral life. We feel justified in expressing the opinion that such sale did have this tendency.

The prosecuting witness, Mahan, was recalled for further direct examination and the following proceedings occurred:

The admissibility of this kind of evidence and the reasons for admitting it in cases arising under the Juvenile Court Act were discussed by Justice Hart in People v. Oliver, 29 Cal. App. 576 , 579, [ 156 Pac. 1005 ]. We think the testimony was for like reasons admissible in the present case.

The judgment and order are affirmed.

Hart, J., and Burnett, J., concurred.