(1) Any person who, alone or acting through another, directly or indirectly, violates any of the provisions of this chapter for which no other penalty is provided shall, for the first offense, be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor; and for the second and each subsequent violation, the person shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. The penalties provided for in this subsection shall be in addition to the revocation of the offender's license. If the offender is a corporation, joint stock company, association, fiduciary, limited liability company, or other business entity recognized by law, the principal officer or officers responsible for the violation may be imprisoned.
(2) Any person who violates KRS 244.170 shall, upon the first conviction, be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Upon a second conviction the person shall be guilty of a Class D felony. Upon the third and each subsequent conviction, the person shall be guilty of a Class C felony.
(3) Any person who violates any of the provisions of KRS 244.480 to 244.600 shall be guilty of a violation.
(4) Except as provided in KRS 244.085, any person, firm, corporation, limited liability company, or other business entity recognized by law violating any provision of KRS 244.083 and 244.085 shall be guilty of a violation and each violation shall constitute a separate offense.
(5) Except as provided in subsection (7) of this section, any person who violates the provisions of KRS 244.085(4) shall, for the first offense, be guilty of a violation, and for each subsequent offense shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(6) Any person who violates KRS 244.125 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class D felony for each subsequent offense.
(7) For any person under the age of eighteen (18) years, a violation of KRS 244.085(1), (2), (3), (4), or (7) shall be deemed a status offense and shall be under the jurisdiction of the juvenile session of the District Court or the family division of the Circuit Court, as appropriate. Effective: June 29, 2017 History: Amended 2017 Ky. Acts ch. 62, sec. 113, effective June 29, 2017. -- Amended 2008 Ky. Acts ch. 87, sec. 23, effective July 15, 2008. -- Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 121, sec. 35, effective July 15, 1998. -- Amended 1994 Ky. Acts ch. 396, sec. 7, effective July 15, 1994. – Amended 1992 Ky. Acts ch. 463, sec. 32, effective July 14, 1992. -- Amended 1986 Ky. Acts ch. 336, sec. 10, effective July 15, 1986. -- Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 312, sec. 10, effective July 1, 1986. -- Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 254, sec. 10. -- Amended 1972 Ky. Acts ch. 286, sec. 3. -- Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 62, sec. 6. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2554b-67, 2554b-152, 2554b-196, 2554b-219.
Notes of Decisions
Kentucky Licensed Beverage Ass'n v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't, 127 S.W.3d 647 (Ky. 2004).
· cites it 6× “Therefore, we merely held in White that an employee of a licensee could also be subject to the criminal sanctions provided for in KRS 244.990. KRS 244.990 does not mention the imposition of any civil penalties, and clearly does not provide that the local ABC Administrator or…”
Pike v. George, 434 S.W.2d 626 (Ky. Ct. App. 1968).
“KRS 244.990 (1). Violation also authorizes the suspension or revocation of the license to engage in the sale of alcoholics.”
Commonwealth v. White, 3 S.W.3d 353 (Ky. 1999).
“KRS 244.990(1) makes both the license holder and the employee accountable in a situation where the employee sold alcohol to a minor.”
Priest v. Black Cat, Inc., 74 S.W.3d 769 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001).
“ocure or permit any alcoholic beverages to be sold, given away, or delivered to: (1) A minor, except that in any prosecution for selling alcoholic beverages to a minor it shall be an affirmative defense that the sale was induced by the use of false, fraudulent, or altered…”
Michael Joseph James v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2019).
“Considering our long-held rule that “[d]oubts in the construction of a penal statute will be resolved in favor of lenity and against a construction that would produce extremely harsh or incongruous results or impose punishments totally disproportionate to the gravity of the…”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Michael Joseph James (Ky. 2019).
“Considering our long-held rule that “[d]oubts in the construction of a penal statute will be resolved in favor of lenity and against a construction that would produce extremely harsh or incongruous results or impose punishments totally disproportionate to the gravity of the…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 244.990(1) — 5 cases
Kentucky Licensed Beverage Ass'n v. Louisville-Jefferson Cnty. Metro Gov't, 127 S.W.3d 647 (Ky. 2004).
“Therefore, we merely held in White that an employee of a licensee could also be subject to the criminal sanctions provided for in KRS 244.990. KRS 244.990 does not mention the imposition of any civil penalties, and clearly does not provide that the local ABC Administrator or…”
Commonwealth v. White, 3 S.W.3d 353 (Ky. 1999).
“KRS 244.990(1) makes both the license holder and the employee accountable in a situation where the employee sold alcohol to a minor.”
Priest v. Black Cat, Inc., 74 S.W.3d 769 (Ky. Ct. App. 2001).
“ocure or permit any alcoholic beverages to be sold, given away, or delivered to: (1) A minor, except that in any prosecution for selling alcoholic beverages to a minor it shall be an affirmative defense that the sale was induced by the use of false, fraudulent, or altered…”
Michael Joseph James v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2019).
“Considering our long-held rule that “[d]oubts in the construction of a penal statute will be resolved in favor of lenity and against a construction that would produce extremely harsh or incongruous results or impose punishments totally disproportionate to the gravity of the…”
Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Michael Joseph James (Ky. 2019).
“Considering our long-held rule that “[d]oubts in the construction of a penal statute will be resolved in favor of lenity and against a construction that would produce extremely harsh or incongruous results or impose punishments totally disproportionate to the gravity of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.