Guminga owned a restaurant.
In a sting operation, an undercover 17 year-old went to the restaurant and
ordered some liquor. The waitress served the liquor without asking for
ID.
Guminga was charged with
serving alcohol to a minor.
The prosecutor did not
contend that Guminga approved of, or even knew of the waitress' actions.
As the employer he still
had vicarious liability.
The prosecutor argued that
it was a strict liability crime,
which requires no intent
(aka mens rea).
Guminga made a motion to
dismiss on the grounds that the Statute was a violation of due process. The Trial Court denied the motion. Guminga
appealed and the Trial Court sent the question to the Minnesota Supreme
Court.
The Minnesota Supreme Court
found that the Statute did violate due process.
The Minnesota Supreme Court
found that the Statute was a violation of due process because it contained the possibility of
imprisonment.
The Court found that only
crimes which result in a fine can carry strict liability.
"We find that in
Minnesota, no one can be convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment
for an act he did not commit, did not have knowledge of, or give
expressed or implied consent to the commission of."
Although it isn't true in all
States, the general rule is that strict liability can only be used for crimes that do not carry
the possibility of imprisonment.
There is a lot of debate on
this issue, but the US Supreme Court has not yet ruled that strict
liability for crimes with the
possibility of imprisonment is unconstitutional.
