holding that certain sections of the Liquor Code did not require a mens rea when the legislature included terms such as “knowingly” and “willfully” in some provisions, but not in others
How later courts described this case
- holding that certain sections of the Liquor Code did not require a mens rea when the legislature included terms such as “knowingly” and “willfully” in some provisions, but not in others
- holding that imprisonment for vicarious liability crime violated due process under Pennsylvania Constitution
- developing that whether a culpable mental state is a necessary ingredient of a statutory offense is a matter of statutory interpretation
- application of absolute vicarious liability for acts of another in criminal case resulting in imprisonment deprives criminal defendant of due process of law; “[D]istinction between respondeat superior in tort law and its application to the criminal law is obvious[: i]n tort law, the doctrine is employed for the purpose of settling the incidence of loss upon the party who can best bear such loss[; but, w]e impose penal treatment upon those who injure or menace social interests, partly in order to reform, partly to prevent the continuation of the antisocial activity and partly to deter others.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell:
Although the question is close, in my judgment this case is ruled in principle by Commonwealth v. Sellers, 130 Pa. 32 ; Commonwealth v. Holstein, 132 Pa. 357 ; Commonwealth v. Zelt, 138 Pa. 615 ; Commonwealth v. Johnston, 2 Pa. Superior Ct. 317 ; Commonwealth v. Jackson, 146 Pa. Superior Ct. 328 (affirmed 345 Pa. 456 ); Commonwealth v. Zasloff, 137 Pa. Superior Ct. 96 ; Commonwealth v. Borek, 161 Pa. Superior Ct. 200 . I believe that the distinction which is drawn by the majority is of insufficient weight to distinguish and govern the instant case.
I would affirm the judgment and the sentence on the opinion of Judge Hirt, speaking for a unanimous Superior Court.