Title: State v. Guminga, Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1981.
Author: Marie

Facts: -2 undercover investigators went to bar w/ 17-yr-old.

           -Waitress served liquor to the minor.

           -Plaintiff Guminga was the bar owner whose employee sold alcohol to a minor.

Procedure: -D charged with vicarious liability in selling liquor to a minor, which brings fine and possible criminal punishment.

            -Motion to dismiss

        -Ct. denied motion to dismiss

                    -D: interlockatory appeal, appealed directly to Supreme Ct. before the trial, saying if he was found guilty it would violate his due process; stigma, criminal history.

Issue: Does convicting D of a crime based on vicarious liability violate D's due process rights?

Holding: Convicting D of a crime based on vicarious liability violates Ds due process rights.

Ruling: Ruled that D had to pay fine but not be imprisoned; no one can be criminally punished for crime he or she did not permit

Legal Reasoning: -Balancing of personal liberty vs. public good.

                              -Alternative methods of serving purposes of statute; civil fines will work.

Evaluation: Dissent - Deterrence: Limiting punishment to fine is only another business expense.