AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant, Kristina Kennedy, was convicted for serving or giving alcoholic beverages to a minor, a violation of the Liquor Control Act. The case centers around whether the act of serving alcohol to a minor with the consent of the minor's parent or guardian constitutes a violation of the Act.

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Otero County, James Waylon Counts, District Judge.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that serving or giving alcohol to a minor with the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian is not a violation of the Liquor Control Act. Relied on a statutory provision suggesting that it is not a violation when a parent, legal guardian, or adult spouse of a minor serves alcoholic beverages to that minor under certain conditions (paras 3-6).
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether serving or giving alcohol to a minor with the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian constitutes a violation of the Liquor Control Act.
• Whether the district court committed fundamental error in not instructing the jury on the Defendant's affirmative defense that she had the consent of the minor’s parent.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction (para 1).

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, with Linda M. Vanzi and Jennifer L. Attrep concurring, the Court found:
  The argument that serving or giving alcohol to a minor with the consent of the minor’s parent or guardian is not a violation of the Liquor Control Act was rejected. The Court held that the statutory provision cited by the Defendant does not apply to her, as no evidence was presented at trial that she was a parent, legal guardian, or adult spouse of the minor in question (para 4).
  The Court disagreed with the Defendant's interpretation of the statute to apply in circumstances where a parent, legal guardian, or adult spouse gives consent to another person to serve or give alcohol to a minor. The Court emphasized the plain language of the statute, which limits its application only to instances in which those specifically designated serve or give alcohol to a minor (para 5).
  The Court found it was not absurd for the legislature to exempt only those persons specifically named in the statute from criminal liability under the Liquor Control Act for giving or serving alcoholic beverages to a minor. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent that more than mere consent and presence of the parent, legal guardian, or adult spouse is required (para 6).
  The Court concluded it was not fundamental error for the district court not to instruct the jury on the Defendant’s theory of the case, as the consent of a minor’s parent is not a defense to a violation under Section 60-7B-1 (para 7).
  The evidence was deemed sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction, as it showed that the Defendant gave an alcoholic beverage to L.J., a minor, and knew that L.J. was a minor (para 9).