Embry v. State, 28668
| Decision Date | 26 January 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 28668,28668 |
| Citation | 229 Ind. 179,96 N.E.2d 274 |
| Parties | EMBRY et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Addison M. Beavers, Kenneth W. Weyerbacher, Boonville, for appellant.
J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., Charles F. O'Connor, Deputy, Merl M. Wall, Deputy, for appellee.
An indictment entitled an 'Indictment for Contributing to Child Delinquency' was returned against the appellants. They were tried by jury in the Warrick Circuit Court. From an adverse verdict, they appeal.
Omitting the formal parts, the indictment charges that said defendants, 'on the 27th day of September, A.D., 1949, at said County and State aforesaid, did then and there, unlawfully cause and encourage, one Shirley Joe Ahrens, a girl under the age of sixteen years, to-wit: thirteen years, to unlawfully and knowingly violate the compulsory school attendance law, by preventing her from attending a public school while such school was in session,' contrary, etc.
The defendants moved to quash the indictment on the grounds that the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute a public offense and that the indictment does not state the offense charged with sufficient certainty. The motion was overruled, and the correctness of that ruling is the first question presented.
Burns' 1949 Supp. § 10-812 provides that:
'It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or encourage any boy under the full age of eighteen (18) years, or any girl under the full age of eighteen (18) years, to commit any act which would cause such boy or girl to become [a] delinquent child as defined by the laws of this state;
* * *
* * *
'Or for any person to knowingly encourage or contribute to or in any way cause any such boy or girl to violate any law of this state or ordinance of any city; * * *.'
Every child between the ages of 7 and 15 years, with exceptions not here important, is required by law to attend school during the time the public schools are in session. Burns' 1948 Repl. § 28-505, as affected by Burns' 1949 Supp. § 28-505b.
The indictment was apparently intended to charge the appellants, under § 10-812, supra, with knowingly causing and encouraging a minor to violate the law just referred to. An examination of the record seems to indicate that the case was tried on that theory. The indictment is not sufficient for that purpose, for the statute makes such conduct an offense only when it is knowingly done. It is true the indictment charges that the appellants caused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Nieblas-Duarte
...v. United States, 338 F.2d 651, 652 (1st Cir.1964); State v. Parks, 161 W.Va. 511, 243 S.E.2d 848, 850 (1978); Embry v. State, 229 Ind. 179, 96 N.E.2d 274, 275 (1951). Others find unlawfully or feloniously do not aver a mental state element for reasons unique to the case or jurisdiction. E.......
-
State v. Gillespie
...and Informations § 201, p. 1174 (1944, Supp.1981). The information need only allege the intent proscribed by statute. Embry v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 179, 96 N.E.2d 274. See also, McCormick v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 281, 119 N.E.2d 5. The sufficiency of the evidence pertaining to individual......
-
Brooks v. State
...Ind., 499 N.E.2d 1077, 1083 (Amendment not effective until the trial court accepts it.). Also, Mentzer v. State, supra; Embry v. State (1951) 229 Ind. 179, 96 N.E.2d 274 (If intent is an element of the crime, it must be charged.); Abner v. State (1986), Ind., 497 N.E.2d 550 at 553 (The elem......
-
State v. Swayk
...35-34-1-2(a)(4)) is that in charging an offense the information should set forth all the elements of the offense. See Embry v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 179, 96 N.E.2d 274. On the other hand, our decisions have held that guilty knowledge need not be specifically charged in the information unle......