Hudson v. State, 1-977A225

CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana
Citation370 N.E.2d 983,175 Ind.App. 237
Docket NumberNo. 1-977A225,1-977A225
PartiesLarry J. HUDSON, Sr., a/k/a Roy Wright, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff).
Decision Date28 December 1977

Page 983

370 N.E.2d 983
175 Ind.App. 237
Larry J. HUDSON, Sr., a/k/a Roy Wright, Appellant (Defendant),
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff).
No. 1-977A225.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.
Dec. 28, 1977.

Page 984

William K. Teeguarden, Public Defender, Terre Haute, for appellant.

Theo L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Charles D. Rodgers, Deputy Atty., Indianapolis, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Chief Judge.


Defendant-appellant, Larry J. Hudson, Sr., was found guilty of Failure to Provide Support pursuant to the provisions of IC 1971, 35-14-4-1 (Burns Code Ed.), in a trial before the court, and was sentenced to the custody of the Indiana Department of Corrections for a period of six months. Following the denial of his motion to correct errors Hudson perfected this appeal.

Hudson's sole contention of error is that the evidence was insufficient to support the decision of the court finding him guilty of wilfully neglecting to provide support for his four children.

The evidence most favorable to the State reveals that Hudson [175 Ind.App. 238] was self-employed as a carpet installer for half of the year 1974. Hudson did some hourly work for two carpet stores until March, 1975, since which time he has not been employed. Until October, 1975, Hudson and his family lived off the proceeds of a loan and the profit from the sale of their house.

In November, 1975, Hudson's wife received a divorce decree which required him to pay fifty dollars per week for the children's support. She has received no money for their children's support from him since October, 1975.

When the sufficiency of the evidence is raised as an issue on appeal, this Court will not weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. We will only consider that evidence most favorable to the State with the logical and reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. We will affirm the conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of facts could reasonably infer that the appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. McAfee v. State (1973), 259 Ind. 687, 291 N.E.2d 554, Hopper v. State (1974), Ind.App., 314 N.E.2d 98.

Hudson does not dispute the fact that the State proved that the four children were his or that he failed to provide any funds or means of support after October, 1975. He argues, however, that the evidence does not show beyond a reasonable doubt that the failure to provide was wilfully done.

It is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Marriage of Lopp, In re, 778S145
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 20, 1978
    ...supposedly probative. The Court of Appeals in this case has specifically affirmed the trial court on this finding of fact. Lopp, supra, 370 N.E.2d at 983. This holding of the Court of Appeals is consistent with the principle that in reviewing actions of a trial court, we neither weigh the e......
  • Shuttleworth v. State, 4-1282A373
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 31, 1984 was an appeal from a prosecution under IND.CODE 35-14-5-2 (1976) which has since been repealed. Similarly, Hudson v. State, (1977) 175 Ind.App. 237, 370 N.E.2d 983, relied on the construction of IND.CODE 35-14-4-1 (1976), also repealed. Both these statutes specifically required a findi......
  • Nelke v. State, CA
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arkansas
    • December 10, 1986
    ...criminal nonsupport case beyond a reasonable doubt, it may do so by circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence. See Hudson v. State, 175 Ind.App. 237, 370 N.E.2d 983 (1977); Arnett, 370 S.W.2d 169; Wright, 433 A.2d In the case at bar, the appellant's ex-wife testified that she and the appe......
  • Burris v. State, 2-677A239
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 20, 1978
    ...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, In F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT