Utah Court of Appeals
Does mere presence at underage drinking constitute permitting minors to consume alcohol? State v. Terwilliger Explained
Summary
Defendant was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor after being present at a gathering where two minors consumed alcohol. The trial court found defendant guilty based solely on his presence and observation of the minors drinking, without finding any measure of control or active participation by defendant.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Terwilliger, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether passive observation of underage drinking satisfies the statutory requirement of “permitting” minors to consume alcohol under Utah’s contributing to delinquency statute.
Background and Facts
Deputy Walker responded to a suspected DUI report near Ken’s Lake and discovered a group of young people, including defendant Terwilliger and two minors under eighteen. The scene included open beer containers, discarded cans, and the odor of alcohol. Defendant admitted to drinking but denied the minors were consuming his beer. His blood alcohol level was .052. The trial court convicted defendant of contributing to delinquency based solely on his presence while minors consumed alcohol, finding it incredible that defendant was unaware of their drinking.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether defendant’s mere presence at a gathering where minors consumed alcohol constituted “permitting” under Utah Code section 78-3a-801(1)(d)(ii), which criminalizes encouraging or permitting minors to consume alcohol.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, conducting a statutory interpretation analysis of “permit.” Using Webster’s definition, the court determined that “permit” requires “some measure of control or participation–in other words, active or knowing acquiescence.” The court distinguished this case from accomplice liability precedents, emphasizing that mere presence combined with knowledge of criminal activity does not establish guilt. The trial court made no findings indicating defendant exercised control over the minors’ alcohol consumption.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that prosecutors must prove more than passive observation to sustain contributing to delinquency convictions. The statute requires evidence of active participation or control, such as providing alcohol, encouraging consumption, or exercising authority over the minors. Defense attorneys can use this precedent to challenge charges based solely on presence at underage drinking events.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Terwilliger
Citation
1999 UT App 337
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 981748-CA
Date Decided
November 18, 1999
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Mere presence at a gathering where minors consume alcohol, without more, does not constitute ‘permitting’ minors to consume alcohol under Utah Code section 78-3a-801.
Standard of Review
Sufficiency of evidence reviewed for substantial evidence
Practice Tip
When prosecuting contributing to delinquency charges, ensure evidence shows active participation or control, not mere presence at the scene.
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.