Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah prosecutors charge minors for supplying alcohol to other minors? State v. Morrison Explained
Summary
Eighteen-year-old Morrison was charged with supplying alcohol to other minors after sharing beer at a party. The district court dismissed the charge, concluding it would create an absurd result under In re Z.C. because Morrison was also a minor in the protected class and younger than those he provided alcohol to.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals clarified the scope of the absurd result doctrine in State v. Morrison, holding that minors can be prosecuted for supplying alcohol to other minors despite their own protected status under alcohol prohibition statutes.
Background and Facts
Eighteen-year-old Morrison obtained beer through a “Hey, Mister” scheme and shared it with other minors at a campsite party. The State charged Morrison with both unlawful possession of alcohol by a minor and supplying alcohol to a minor. Morrison moved to dismiss the supplying charge, arguing that prosecuting a minor for providing alcohol to other minors created an “absurd result” similar to the Utah Supreme Court’s holding in In re Z.C. The district court agreed and dismissed the supplying charge, concluding Morrison was in the protected class and younger than those who received the alcohol.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether charging a minor with supplying alcohol to another minor is precluded by the absurd result analysis from In re Z.C., which involved consensual sexual activity between minors where both could be charged as perpetrators of the same act.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from In re Z.C., emphasizing that the primary concern in Z.C. was the simultaneous punishment of both children for the same consensual act where no clear perpetrator and victim existed. Here, Morrison clearly acted as the supplier (perpetrator) while the other minors were recipients (victims). The court noted that in supplying alcohol cases, “almost every case involves a clear perpetrator and a clear victim—the perpetrator is the one who supplies the alcohol, and the victim is the one who receives it.”
Practice Implications
This decision limits the application of In re Z.C.‘s absurd result doctrine to situations where there is truly no identifiable distinction between perpetrator and victim. Practitioners should focus on the perpetrator-victim distinction rather than merely arguing protected class membership when seeking dismissals based on absurd results. The decision also confirms that being a member of a protected class does not grant immunity from laws designed to protect that same class.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Morrison
Citation
2012 UT App 258
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20110018-CA
Date Decided
September 13, 2012
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A minor can be prosecuted for supplying alcohol to other minors because there is a clear perpetrator (the supplier) and victim (the recipient), distinguishing this case from In re Z.C.’s absurd result analysis which required both a perpetrator and victim.
Standard of Review
Questions of statutory interpretation and proper interpretation of case law are reviewed for correctness
Practice Tip
When arguing absurd result dismissals based on In re Z.C., focus on whether there is an identifiable distinction between perpetrator and victim rather than merely protected class membership.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.