Page 333 |
Previous | 333 of 832 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1973 309
State v. Smith
The Slate's evidence tended to show the following: Defend-ant
and the prolsecuting witness were married to each other in
1958 and that four children were born of the marriage. At
some time prior to 14 December 1970, defendant and the prose-cuting
witness separate~d;a nd at some time since 14 December
1970, a decree of absolute divorce has been entered. On 14 De-cember
1970 an order was entered by a district court judge in
Randolph County requiring defendant, among other things, to
pay to the clerk of court in Randolph County the sum of $200.00
per month for the support and maintenance of his four chil-dren.
At the time of the issuance of the warrant in this case
and at all times up to the trial, defendant was making payments
under the district court order entered in Randolph County.
The State undertook to show a change in the circumstances
of the prosecuting witness since the entry of the December 1970
district court older in Randolph County. Under the instructions
of the trial court, the jury found defendant guilty of wilfully
neglecting or refusing to provide adequate support for his four
children. Defendant was sentenced to a term of six months in
the county jail. The sentence was suspended for five years upon
conditions which included the condition that he pay to the clerk
of court of Chatham County the sum of $275.00 per month for
the use and benefit of the prosecuting witness.
Defendant appealed.
A t t m e y General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General
Cole, for the State.
Boyce, Mitchell, Bum & Smith, by Ben F. Clifton, Jr., for
the defendant.
BROCK, Judge.
Defendant assigns as error that the trial court failed to
allow his motion for nonsuit made at the close of the State's
evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence. We think
this assignment of error has merit.
"In a prosecution under G.S. 14-322 the failure by a defend-ant
to provide adequate support for his child must be wilful,
that is, he intentionally and without just cause or excuse does
not provide adequate support for his child according to his
means and station in life, and this essential element of the
offense must be alleged and proved." State v. Hall, 251 N.C.
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.018, Spring Session 1973] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1973 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 18, Spring Session 1973. Cited as 18 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 36.8 MB; 832 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_018.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 333 |
| Full Text | N.C.App.1 SPRING SESSION 1973 309 State v. Smith The Slate's evidence tended to show the following: Defend-ant and the prolsecuting witness were married to each other in 1958 and that four children were born of the marriage. At some time prior to 14 December 1970, defendant and the prose-cuting witness separate~d;a nd at some time since 14 December 1970, a decree of absolute divorce has been entered. On 14 De-cember 1970 an order was entered by a district court judge in Randolph County requiring defendant, among other things, to pay to the clerk of court in Randolph County the sum of $200.00 per month for the support and maintenance of his four chil-dren. At the time of the issuance of the warrant in this case and at all times up to the trial, defendant was making payments under the district court order entered in Randolph County. The State undertook to show a change in the circumstances of the prosecuting witness since the entry of the December 1970 district court older in Randolph County. Under the instructions of the trial court, the jury found defendant guilty of wilfully neglecting or refusing to provide adequate support for his four children. Defendant was sentenced to a term of six months in the county jail. The sentence was suspended for five years upon conditions which included the condition that he pay to the clerk of court of Chatham County the sum of $275.00 per month for the use and benefit of the prosecuting witness. Defendant appealed. A t t m e y General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Cole, for the State. Boyce, Mitchell, Bum & Smith, by Ben F. Clifton, Jr., for the defendant. BROCK, Judge. Defendant assigns as error that the trial court failed to allow his motion for nonsuit made at the close of the State's evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence. We think this assignment of error has merit. "In a prosecution under G.S. 14-322 the failure by a defend-ant to provide adequate support for his child must be wilful, that is, he intentionally and without just cause or excuse does not provide adequate support for his child according to his means and station in life, and this essential element of the offense must be alleged and proved." State v. Hall, 251 N.C. |
