1. HaroldSowardsII
CJ 322, Tu/Th 9:30
9/30/15
State v. Zeta Chi Fraternity
688 A.2d 530 (N.H. 1997)
1. Facts
ZetaChi isa NH corporationand fraternityatthe Univ.of NH
Theyholda rush eventandhire twofemale stripperswhosimulateoral oneach other
Afterbeinggivenmoney,guestsgettoperformoral onthe dancersas well
There isa vendingmachine containingbeer,itismovedtoa separate apartment,
howeverpeople still purchase itwhile someone ismakingchange forthe machine
ZetaChi isconvictedinSuperiorCourt,StraffordCo.of sellingalcoholtopersonsunder
the age of 21 andof prostitution
Appeals
Supreme Courtaffirmsthe decision
2. Issue
Didan agent of the corporationact withinhisactual orapparentauthorityas a memberof the
corporation?
3. Holdings
Yes,affirmed
4. Reasoning
Theyfirstclarifythatthe onlydefendantinthiscase isa corporate entityandnoindividual
membersof the organizationcanbe charged.A corporationcan alsobe heldliable foranyact
performedbythe agents/employeesactingwithinthe scope of theirauthority/employment.
In the case of the alcohol to minors,theyhave witnesstestimonystatingthatZetaChi
had control overthe soda machine,onlytheyhadinterestinthe proceeds,fraternitymembers
had keystothe apt where itislocated,someone wasmakingchange forthe machine andno
one otherthan a fraternitymemberwouldhave interestmakingchange forthe machine.
Mental state dependsonthe knowledgeof itsagents.A corporationisconsideredtohave the
collective knowledgeof itsemployeesandcanbe heldresponsible fortheirfailure toact
accordingly.Theyactedrecklesslyfromthe factsthat manyof the 150 guestswere under2 and
the rush party waswidelypublicizedoncampusandtherefore actedinthe scope of their
authority.
In the case of the prostitution,theyhave guesttestimonysayingtheywere toldthatthe
more moneytheypaidthe more the dancerswoulddo.On more than one occasionthe guests
were ledtoa mattress(broughtoutbythe frat brothers) toperformoral on the dancersandat
leastone guestperformedoral onthe dancerfor “quite a while”.Thereforefratmembersacted
2. withinthe scope of theirauthority/behalf of the corporationinallowingoral sex tobe
performedinexchange formoney.Evenwiththe 1st
act beingasurprise,ZetaChi knowingly
permittedoral sex byfailingtopreventthe conduct.
