Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County, in case of In Re: Raymond R. Palumbo and Mary M. Palumbo, Misc. No. 1983 -- 84.
Faith S. Diehl, Assistant Counsel, for appellant.
Myron I. Markovitz, Gleason, Di Francesco, Shahade & Markovitz, for appellees.
Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.
The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (Board) seeks review of an April 22, 1985, order of the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County overturning a May 6, 1983, order of the Board which had found Raymond and Mary Palumbo (appellees) in violation of Sections 401(a)*fn1 and 493(1)*fn2 of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code (Code), Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, as amended.
On December 27, 1982, a member of the Westmont Police Department observed a minor on the highway in possession of two six packs of sixteen-ounce beer. When stopped, the youth informed the officer that he had purchased
the alcohol from appellees' establishment. At a hearing before the Board Examiner, the minor testified that he had purchased the alcohol through the use of a false out-of-state identification card obtained from a novelty shop. The card was introduced as an exhibit at the hearing. Section 495*fn3 of the Code requires the signing of an identification statement card in order to be non-culpable for selling alcoholic beverages to a minor. Appellees failed to satisfy this requirement.
On May 6, 1983, the Board issued an opinion and order finding appellees in violation of the Code and fining them Three Hundred Fifty Dollars ($350.00).*fn4 For the de novo appeal, the parties agreed to rest on the record developed before the Board Examiner. No additional testimony was presented at the de novo hearing, nor was the record supplemented in any fashion. The trial court in an opinion and order dated April 22, 1985, found that appellees were not in violation of the Code and reversed the Board's decision.
As a basis for its decision, the trial court stated that it did not accept the testimony of the minor as credible. On appeal to this Court, the Board argues that the trial court erred because no new evidence was presented at the de novo hearing to justify a reversal based solely upon witness credibility.
We agree and reverse the trial court's order and reinstate ...