This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Police arrested D and charged him with violation of Section 4-493(1) of the Crimes Code. The first witness to testify at trial was Joshua Fosnight (Josh), who was sixteen years of age. Josh explained that he first met D in late September to early November 1999. Josh stated that a friend from work introduced him to D and told D to take care of him. At no time did D ask him for identification. Josh never showed him any. D sold Josh alcohol, which Josh claimed he always took out of the Bar. A sting was set up against D, and Josh returned to the bar to buy more alcohol. D was arrested. At the close of the case, D moved for acquittal. D claims the statute required that the Commonwealth prove that D knowingly provided the beverage to a minor and that the Commonwealth had failed to prove such knowledge. The motion was denied. D testified that he requested ID from Josh when they first met and that Josh provided him, with proof of age. The identification indicated that Josh was twenty-two years old. D denied knowing that Josh was underage and stated that he did not intend to serve someone who was underage. The court observed that Josh looked older than his age and that Josh is a very big young man. The court found that the statute required intentional and knowing proof of furnishing but not with respect to age and then held that the plain reading of the statute does not require that the Commonwealth prove that D knew that the person was 21 years of age. D was convicted and appealed. The Superior court affirmed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.