## Facts

- Sixteen-year-old Joshua Fosnight met Joseph Scolieri at the Econo Lodge Bar through a friend.
- Fosnight bought alcohol from Scolieri at the bar on multiple occasions.
- Fosnight testified Scolieri never checked his identification when selling him alcohol.
- A few months later, Scolieri provided Fosnight a bottle of vodka in exchange for $30.
- After Fosnight’s father suspected drinking and contacted police, officers arranged a sting operation in which Fosnight returned to the bar and purchased a case of beer from Scolieri, who placed it in Fosnight’s car; police then arrested Scolieri.
- Scolieri testified that when he first met Fosnight he requested identification and Fosnight produced an ID showing he was 22.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found Fosnight appeared older than his age and expressly found the Commonwealth failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scolieri knew Fosnight was under 21.
- Despite that finding, the trial court convicted Scolieri under 18 Pa. C.S. § 6310.1(a), reasoning the statute required only that Scolieri intentionally and knowingly furnished alcohol to a person and that the person was in fact under 21.
- The Superior Court affirmed, reasoning the Commonwealth needed to prove Scolieri “knew or should have known” Fosnight was under 21.
- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted review to address the mens rea required as to the recipient’s age under § 6310.1(a).

## Issues

1. Whether 18 Pa. C.S. § 6310.1(a) requires the Commonwealth to prove the defendant actually knew the person furnished alcohol was under 21, as opposed to merely showing he “knew or should have known” or imposing strict liability as to age.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that § 6310.1(a) requires proof that the defendant acted intentionally and knowingly with respect to furnishing alcohol to a person he knew was less than 21 years of age.
- The court rejected the trial court’s reading that “intentionally and knowingly” modifies only the act of selling or furnishing and not the age element.
- The court also rejected the Superior Court’s “knew or should have known” standard as adding language the General Assembly did not enact.
- Because the trial court found the Commonwealth did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Scolieri knew Fosnight was under 21, the conviction could not stand under the correct interpretation of the statute.
- The court reversed the Superior Court’s order and vacated the conviction.

## Legal Principles

- When statutory language is clear, courts apply it as written and may not revise it to match policy concerns.
- In criminal statutes that specify a mens rea, that mental state generally applies to each material element of the offense (conduct and attendant circumstances) unless the statute indicates otherwise.
- Under 18 Pa. C.S. § 6310.1(a), the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally and knowingly sold or furnished alcohol to a person and that the defendant knew the person was less than 21 years of age.
- Courts may not convert a statutory “knowingly” requirement into a negligence-type “should have known” test without legislative direction.

## Conclusion

Commonwealth v. Scolieri holds that 18 Pa. C.S. § 6310.1(a) requires the Commonwealth to prove the defendant actually knew the recipient was under 21, and the Supreme Court vacated Scolieri’s conviction because the trial court found the Commonwealth failed to prove that knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.


Commonwealth v. Scolieri, 813 A.2d 672 (2002)