Burris v. State
Decision Date | 20 November 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 2-677A239,2-677A239 |
Parties | Donald BURRIS, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Kenneth T. Roberts, Wilson, Coleman & Roberts, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theo. L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Charles D. Rodgers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-appellant, Donald Burris, was charged with Failure to Provide for Children Under Eighteen Years of Age, 1 the information reading in pertinent part as follows:
". . . Donald Paul Burris on or about the 21st day of July, A. D., 1976, at and in the County of Marion in the State of Indiana, was then and there the father and charged by law with the maintenance of Kimberly (12-15-60), Lori (6-8-62), Kristi (12-2-63), his children living in the County of Marion, State of Indiana, all under the age of eighteen (18) years, said children being then and there of the ages herein alleged; that the said Defendant, Donald Paul Burris, then and there was able by personal service, labor and earnings to support said child (sic) and that said Defendant, Donald Paul Burris, did then and there willfully neglect and refuse to provide said child (sic) with the necessary food, clothing, shelter and medical attention . . . ." 2
After a trial to the court, he was found guilty as charged and sentenced to one to seven years imprisonment.
The issue presented in this case is whether the State produced evidence showing that the Defendant was "able by personal service, labor, and earnings" to support his minor children and wilfully neglected to do so. The Defendant moved, at the close of the State's evidence and again after resting without presenting evidence on behalf of the Defendant, for a dismissal based on insufficiency of evidence.
We reverse for the reason that there was insufficient evidence to prove the Defendant guilty as charged.
When a question of the sufficiency of the evidence is presented to this Court, we will consider only that evidence most favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value which would permit a reasonable trier of fact to find the existence of each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt the judgment must be affirmed. Schilling v. State (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d 1142.
The sole witness for the State at the trial was the Defendant's ex-wife, Sharon Burris (Sharon). The only other evidence consisted of documents showing Defendant to be the father of the children, his obligation to support according to the provision in the divorce decree, and the record of support payments received by the clerk.
The facts and reasonable inferences therefrom most favorable to the State reveal that Defendant and Sharon were married in August 1960, and during their marriage they had three children. They were divorced on November 29, 1967, the decree providing that Defendant pay $100 per month for child support. Between November, 1967 and April, 1970, Defendant paid $1,020 for support. After April, 1970, he made no further payments, and was in arrears at the time of the trial in the amount of $9,980. The Defendant had no formal education or training for a skill. During his marriage to Sharon he disliked working and did not hold continuous employment. His jobs included occasional work at filling stations and, for a period of eighteen months, he was employed at a bank. The Defendant has lived in Arizona since the divorce.
Sharon had no personal knowledge as to whether or not the Defendant had been employed from 1968 through 1976. She also had no knowledge as to whether or not the Defendant suffered from any disease or infirmity during these years. She had no personal knowledge as to whether or not the Defendant was physically able by personal service, labor, or earnings to support the children from November 29, 1967, through the trial date.
Sometime since the divorce from Defendant, Sharon saw Defendant on at least one occasion when he was visiting Indianapolis with his second wife, Donna, with whom Defendant had children. At that time, the Defendant did not appear to be handicapped or disabled in any way. Since that visit, Sharon had no communication with the Defendant. Defendant had married Donna in 1967, shortly after the divorce. He had also later married Judy. At the trial he was accompanied by his fourth wife.
The trial judge, in finding Defendant guilty, stated:
(our emphasis).
It is fundamental that the State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each essential element of the crime charged, Smith v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 425, 249 N.E.2d 493, and the fact that this is a nonsupport case does not relieve the State of that burden. Willfulness is an essential element of the crime charged here. Pursifull v. State (1973), 157 Ind.App. 560, 301 N.E.2d 226. In addition, the State must prove that the Defendant was "able . . . by personal service, labor, or earnings" to support his children. 3
Proving willfulness in nonsupport cases requires a finding of a deliberate or perverse design, malice, or an intentional or deliberate breach by the parent of his duty to provide for his children. Hudson v. State (1977), Ind.App., 370 N.E.2d 983; Hummel v. State (1920), 73 Ind.App. 12, 126 N.E. 444. The evidence must show more than mere carelessness and neglect. Hudson v. State, supra.
In Francis v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 186, 59 N.E.2d 565, the defendant was charged with "wilfully failing to provide food, clothing, shelter and medical attention" for his children. 4 The only issue was whether or not the evidence was sufficient to show that the failure to provide was "wilful". The court held that, Id. at 566 of 59 N.E.2d. There was evidence at trial that the defendant had been ill for a matter of years. Two physicians made statements in writing that defendant could not work at hard labor. However, there was also evidence that the defendant would quit a job and then loaf around town and that twice during the year preceding the filing of the charge he had passed a physical examination when applying for work. The court held that there was sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could infer willfulness.
The State argues that Francis supports the Defendant's conviction since it held that the element of willfulness may be proved by circumstantial evidence. However, in Francis there was evidence that the defendant had jobs which he quit and that he had passed two physical examinations when applying for jobs. In our case, the only evidence of the Defendant having jobs was During his marriage to Sharon, and that evidence is irrelevant to the date charged here. Thus, Francis does not support Defendant's conviction in this case.
The sole question in Hudson v. State, supra, was whether the evidence was sufficient to support the decision of the trial court finding the defendant guilty of wilfully neglecting to provide support to his children in violation of IC 35-14-4-1. Therefore, where Hudson discusses the element of "wilfulness," it is applicable in the case at bar. In affirming the trial court's decision, this Court said the following at p. 984-5 in 370 N.E.2d:
In the case before us there is no evidence in the record which would tend to show that the Defendant was deliberately pursuing an "irresponsible lifestyle", or that he failed to conscientiously seek employment.
Cases in other jurisdictions support our position that the evidence was insufficient in this case. In State v. Nelson (Mo.App.1971), 463 S.W.2d 614 it was charged that the defendant did "unlawfully and wilfully fail, neglect...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adoption of Thomas, Matter of, 4-681A37
...of Anonymous, supra, as well as the natural parent's financial and physical means to accomplish his obligations. See Burris v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 382 N.E.2d 963. In the case at bar, involving children living a considerable distance from their natural father, I cannot conclude the agree......
-
Shuttleworth v. State
...that the jury was required to find his failure to support was willful. He premises this argument on our opinion in Burris v. State, (1978) 178 Ind.App. 327, 382 N.E.2d 963. However, that case was an appeal from a prosecution under IND.CODE 35-14-5-2 (1976) which has since been repealed. Sim......
- Bullock v. State
-
Reed v. State
...the offense beyond a reasonable doubt the judgment must be affirmed. Schilling v. State (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d 1142; Burris v. State (1978), Ind.App., 382 N.E.2d 963. We have no difficulty in finding that there was very substantial evidence that the Defendant was driving his vehicle while......