Local Licensing Authority Minutes 2001 02 26

Home Browse Search

Louisville Local Licensing Authority Meeting Date: February 26, 2001 11 On cross-examination, Attorney Shapiro asked Sergeant Riggins if he was present at Bungalow Wine & Spirits on the date and time of the incident with Mr. Meagher. Riggins stated he was not. Authority Chairperson Myers asked Prosecuting Attorney Shapiro if he had any rebuttal evidence. Shapiro stated he did not. Myers asked Defense Attorney Rennich if he had any rebuttal evidence. Rennich stated he did not. Chairperson Myers asked Prosecuting Attorney Shapiro for his closing statements. Attorney Shapiro stated that it was his responsibility, on behalf of the Local Licensing Authority, to meet the burden of proof and shoxv that by a preponderance of evidence that a violation occurred. Shapiro summarized the testimony presented by Officer Sundberg and Mr. Pearse Meagher, which contained statements that Mr. Meagher was visibly intoxicated. Shapiro stated that testimony given by Mr. Minchul Shin confirms that the sale took place. Attorney Shapiro concluded by stating that the burden of proof had been met and requested the Authority find the licensee, Bungalow Wine & Spirits, did commit violations of the state statutes and Louisville Municipal Code. Chairperson Myers asked Defense Attorney Rennich for his closing statements. Attorney Rennich distributed six case law examples to members of the Authority. Chairperson Myers asked Rennich if he ~vanted these examples entered into the record as evidence. Attorney Shapiro stated that he was not prepared to argue the case law presented and would need dine to prepare a written argument. The Authority Attorney recommended these items not be entered into the record, but rather that Attorney Rennich argue the specific points of the case law, thereby making his statements a part of the record of the hearing. Attorney Rennich stated his acceptance of this procedure. Attorney Shapiro requested the right to respond to Attorney Rennich's argument. Chairperson Myers agreed. Attorney Rennich stated that in the first case, Lyons v. Nasby, 770 P.2d 1250, page 6, it states that a licensee is required "to ascertain whether a patron is "visibly intoxicated" rather than "legally intoxicated." He continued that on page (5), it states that "we have already stated that a reasonable person can foresee that an intoxicated patron will suffer injury, and that there is litde or no social utility in providing an intoxicated person with more alcohol than he or she can safely consume." Rennich cited from the next case Hull v. Rund., 374 P.2d 351, a brief definition of an intoxicated person as "a person who was in such condition as to be deprived of his will power or resPonsibility for his behavior." Attorney Rennich continued with a Court of Appeals case Crespin v. Largo Corporation, 698 P.2d 826, page 3, that states factors used to determine if a person is intoxicated. Rennich read that this person "had a few drinks in the motel bar, and then drove to Largo's bar where he had many more drinks. He testified that while at the bar, he suffered from periodic blackouts, that on at least on occasion he had slipped and fallen over a table or chairs on the way to the restroom, and that he had somehow lost two personal and two payroll checks." Rennich offered additional examples of definitions of a visibly intoxicated person, and read from case Christoph v. Colorado Communications Corporation, 946 P.2d 519, page 4, which states a person "saw Vargas leave empty handed and return with no fewer than six beers on one occasion and no fewer than four beers on another" and 11 \\FRED\VARRAN\ LIQ UOR\2001 \MIN UTES\MINUTES022601.DOC