Opinion
June 10, 1969.
September 11, 1969.
Criminal Law — Juveniles — Delinquency — Consumption of alcohol by minor — Evidence — Sufficiency — Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, § 675.1, added August 14, 1963, P.L. 1098.
Appellant, a juvenile, was adjudged delinquent for violation of the Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, § 675.1, added August 14, 1963, P.L. 1098, as amended (which in relevant part provides that it shall be unlawful for a person less than twenty-one years of age to consume any alcohol). The Commonwealth's case rested solely on the testimony of a fourteen year old boy that appellant consumed alcohol in his own home.
It was Held that the testimony of the boy was insufficient to establish that defendant was seen drinking alcohol. The judgment of sentence was vacated and appellant was discharged.
Before WRIGHT, P.J., WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, JACOBS, HOFFMAN, SPAULDING, and CERCONE, JJ.
Appeal, No. 16, Oct. T., 1969, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Aug. T., 1967, No. 47, in re David E. Kauffman, an alleged delinquent child. Judgment vacated and appellant discharged.
Proceedings upon petition for determination of delinquency of a minor on charge of drinking alcohol. Before WISSLER, P.J.
Finding of guilty and judgment of sentence entered thereon. Defendant appealed.
James P. Coho, for appellant.
James F. Heinly, Assistant District Attorney, with him Clarence C. Newcomer, District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.
WRIGHT, P.J., would affirm on the opinion of President Judge WISSLER.
Argued June 10, 1969.
Appellant, a juvenile, was adjudged delinquent for violation of the Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, § 675.1, added August 14, 1963, P.L. 1098, as amended, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4675.1, which in relevant part provides: "It shall be unlawful for a person less than twenty-one years of age to . . . consume . . . any alcohol . . . within the Commonwealth." This appeal followed.
At trial, two police officers and a fourteen-year-old boy testified that appellant consumed alcohol in his own home. The Commonwealth, however, stipulated that the case rested solely on the testimony of the boy and agreed to strike the testimony of the officers. After a careful review, we find that the testimony of the boy was insufficient to establish that appellant was seen drinking alcohol. Thus, we must reverse and order dismissal. See Jackson Appeal, 214 Pa. Super. 156, 251 A.2d 711 (1969).
We need not reach the question whether, under In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), the Commonwealth's allegations must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Under any standard, the order must be stricken because the evidence does not support the findings of the court.
We need not reach the question, therefore, whether appellant's right to privacy was unlawfully infringed. Cf. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969).
Judgment of sentence is vacated, and appellant is discharged.
WRIGHT, P.J., would affirm on the opinion of President Judge WISSLER.