Underage Drinking: Minor Drinking, Major Problem
Supreme Court of Illinois: The People of the State of Illinois v. Jenna M. Christopherson
Can a minor who supplies another minor with beer be charged with unlawful delivery of alcohol to a minor?
Does your answer change if the minor who received the alcohol dies in a one-car accident after drinking some of the contraband brew?
Illinois law provides in part that:
No person, after purchasing or otherwise obtaining alcoholic liquor, shall sell, give, or deliver such alcoholic liquor to another person under the age of 21 years, except in the performance of a religious ceremony or service.
Defendant Christopherson was a minor. She provided the late Jamie Smith, also a minor, with a 30-pack of Icehouse beer and two cases of Bud Light. After his death at the wheel, she was charged under the above section with a Class A misdemeanor (even though the same statute provides that since death resulted, she could have been charged with a Class 4 felony). She moved to dismiss claiming the statute didn’t intend to apply to minors, but to adults who could legally buy booze then illegally give it to minors. In response, the state argued that the language of the statute was unambiguous: Defendant was a person, which was all that was required by law, and as such, she could be charged under the statute.
The lower court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the charge. It also agreed that the evil the statute addressed was “adults providing alcohol to minors.” The state appealed.
The appellate court reversed, finding that “the commonly understood meaning of ‘person’ is ‘an individual human being,’ and that … ‘no person’ would encompass juveniles.” Defendant appealed.
Defendant’s main argument was that if the alcohol laws were read in context, “it’s clear that the entire section is directed only at those people who are authorized to possess liquor,” to wit, adults, and since defendant was not authorized to possess liquor because of her age, she couldn’t be charged (this logic brings to mind the defendant who shoots his parents to death, then asks the court for leniency because he’s now an orphan).
The Illinois Supreme Court wasn’t buying, and neither should have defendant. It found that the statutory language “is clear and unambiguous” and because defendant is “an individual human being” she is a “person” under the statute, regardless of her age.
The true legislative intent of the statute was to keep alcohol out of the hands of minors, no matter how it gets to them. As the court noted, “The tragic facts of this case indicate that the potential harm when alcohol reaches the hands of minors is no different when the alcohol is provided by another minor rather than by an adult.” Moreover, that the state had mercy (or a weak case) and charged defendant with a felony instead of a misdemeanor did not mean that it conceded that the statute was ambiguous or defective.
It’s back to the lower court for Ms. Christopherson to take a plea or go to trial.
Certainly adults know the risks of supplying minors with booze, guns, drugs and other controlled substances. And those who don’t know the risks at least know they can get in serious trouble for doing so. Minors should become aware of the same potential trouble. Unfortunately, the very nature of being a minor is not to appreciate the risks to self and others, to be ignorant of the law, and too often, not to care one way or the other what might happen.
When it comes to minors buying or dying for a drink, there may be more to answer to than just parents, and way more to regret the morning after.
