Davis v. City of Peachtree City
304 S.E.2d 701, 251 Ga. 219, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 770 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A law that imposes vicarious criminal liability on a licensee for the unauthorized and unknown actions of their employee, without any showing of fault by the licensee, violates the Due Process Clauses of the Georgia and United States Constitutions.
Facts:
- Melvin Davis was the president of Kwickie Food Stores and held a retail wine license for one of the chain's stores in Peachtree City.
- On Sunday, August 16, 1981, a Kwickie Food Store employee, Jim Renew, sold wine to a minor.
- The sale by Renew was also a violation of an ordinance prohibiting the sale of wine on a Sunday.
- Davis had no knowledge of the sale and did not authorize Renew to make the sale.
- As a matter of company policy, Kwickie Food Stores required employees to read and sign a policy sheet explaining the law regarding beer and wine sales to prevent such violations.
Procedural Posture:
- Melvin Davis was charged in the Municipal Court of Peachtree City with violating city ordinances by selling alcohol to a minor and on a Sunday.
- Following a trial, the Municipal Court convicted Davis on both charges.
- Davis was sentenced to a $200 fine and 60 days in jail, with the jail time suspended.
- Davis appealed his conviction to the Superior Court of Fayette County by writ of certiorari.
- The Superior Court of Fayette County affirmed the conviction.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted Davis's application to appeal the Superior Court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city ordinance that imposes vicarious criminal liability on a licensee for an employee's illegal sale of alcohol, without requiring proof that the licensee knew of, authorized, or was negligent in relation to the sale, violate constitutional due process?
Opinions:
Majority - Bell, Justice
Yes, the city ordinance violates due process. A law cannot impose criminal liability and its associated penalties—including potential imprisonment and the stigma of a criminal record—on a person who has committed no wrongful act (actus reus) and possessed no guilty mind (mens rea). The court engaged in a substantive due process analysis, balancing the public's legitimate interest in regulating alcohol sales against the individual's right not to be punished for an act he did not commit, authorize, or know about. While deterring illegal sales is a valid government objective, imposing criminal liability on a non-culpable employer is an unjustifiably onerous means to achieve it. Less burdensome alternatives, such as civil penalties or license revocation, are available to protect the public interest without branding a morally blameless individual a criminal. The court found that the damage to an individual's reputation and future from a criminal conviction outweighs the state's interest in enforcement convenience.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant due process limitation on the doctrine of vicarious criminal liability. It holds that while vicarious liability might be permissible for civil penalties, it is unconstitutional in the criminal context where an individual's liberty and reputation are at stake without any showing of personal fault. The decision requires that for criminal sanctions to be imposed on an employer for an employee's act, the prosecution must prove some level of culpability on the employer's part, such as knowledge, authorization, or negligence. This precedent protects business owners from being held criminally responsible for the rogue actions of their employees and forces legislatures to draft more precise statutes that target actual wrongdoing rather than relying on blanket liability.
Unlock the full brief for Davis v. City of Peachtree City