State v. Cummings

Akron Municipal Court

State v. Cummings

373 N.E.2d 1305, 53 Ohio Misc. 41, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 430, 1977 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 106

CourtAkron Municipal Court

DecidedJuly 5, 1977

DocketNo. 77 CRB 01701

StatusPublished

This text of 373 N.E.2d 1305 (State v. Cummings) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Akron Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Cummings, 373 N.E.2d 1305, 53 Ohio Misc. 41, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 430, 1977 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 106 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

George, J.

The facts have been stipulated and are not in dispute.

This ease concerns the interpretation of E. C. 4301.58 (B) entitled “Activities Prohibited Without Permit,” and reads:

“No person, by himself or by his clerk, agent, or employee, who is not the holder of a B, C, D, E, F, G, or I permit issued by the department, in force at the time, and authorizing the sale of beer, intoxicating liquor, or alcohol, or who is not an agent or employee of the department or the tax commissioner authorized to sell such beer, intoxicating liquor, or alcohol, shall sell, keep, or possess beer, intoxicating liquor, or alcohol for sale to any persons other than those authorized by Chapters 4301. and 4303. of the Eevised Code to purchase any beer or intoxicating liquor, or sell any alcohol at retail.”

The defendant argues that mere possession, even if shown, is insufficient for a conviction under this section without the further showing of some evidence of sale.

The state argues that the possession is shown by reason of the fact that the defendant, at the time of the alleged [42]*42violation, was the bartender and in full possession and control of the bar inventory, including the bottle of ArroAv Vodka. The state further argues that the unauthorized bottle was only present for one purpose, sale.

The court finds that the defendant did have possession and control of the Arrow Vodka and that such possession falls within the prohibited acts of R. C. 4301.58(B). Further that the defendant had said bottle for intended sale to any customers who may come into the bar and ask for same. The court finds this even though the defendant did refuse to acknowledge its existence when the detectives asked for it, the defendant’s acts thereafter, in removing the bottle, clearly show knowledge and an attempt to conceal its existence.

The court finds that the defendant intended to sell the Arrow Vo dim to anyone other than a detective from the fact that the defendant found it necessary not only to deny its existence, but to engineer the disappearance of the bottle from a position over which only the defendant had control, i. e., behind the bar.

Therefore the court finds the defendant .guilty.

Defendant guilty.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

George, J.

The facts have been stipulated and are not in dispute.

This ease concerns the interpretation of E. C. 4301.58 (B) entitled “Activities Prohibited Without Permit,” and reads:

“No person, by himself or by his clerk, agent, or employee, who is not the holder of a B, C, D, E, F, G, or I permit issued by the department, in force at the time, and authorizing the sale of beer, intoxicating liquor, or alcohol, or who is not an agent or employee of the department or the tax commissioner authorized to sell such beer, intoxicating liquor, or alcohol, shall sell, keep, or possess beer, intoxicating liquor, or alcohol for sale to any persons other than those authorized by Chapters 4301. and 4303. of the Eevised Code to purchase any beer or intoxicating liquor, or sell any alcohol at retail.”

The defendant argues that mere possession, even if shown, is insufficient for a conviction under this section without the further showing of some evidence of sale.

The state argues that the possession is shown by reason of the fact that the defendant, at the time of the alleged [42]*42violation, was the bartender and in full possession and control of the bar inventory, including the bottle of ArroAv Vodka. The state further argues that the unauthorized bottle was only present for one purpose, sale.

The court finds that the defendant did have possession and control of the Arrow Vodka and that such possession falls within the prohibited acts of R. C. 4301.58(B). Further that the defendant had said bottle for intended sale to any customers who may come into the bar and ask for same. The court finds this even though the defendant did refuse to acknowledge its existence when the detectives asked for it, the defendant’s acts thereafter, in removing the bottle, clearly show knowledge and an attempt to conceal its existence.

The court finds that the defendant intended to sell the Arrow Vo dim to anyone other than a detective from the fact that the defendant found it necessary not only to deny its existence, but to engineer the disappearance of the bottle from a position over which only the defendant had control, i. e., behind the bar.

Therefore the court finds the defendant .guilty.

Defendant guilty.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

373 N.E.2d 1305, 53 Ohio Misc. 41, 7 Ohio Op. 3d 430, 1977 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cummings-ohmunictakron-1977.