Jackson v. State
Decision Date | 14 April 1930 |
Docket Number | Criminal 718 |
Citation | 36 Ariz. 446,286 P. 824 |
Parties | LOUIS JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE, Respondent |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Mr Herman Lewkowitz, for Appellant.
Mr. K Berry Peterson, Attorney General, Mr. Lloyd J. Andrews Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. George T. Wilson, County Attorney, for the State.
The defendant Louis Jackson, with one Frank Brown, was charged by the county attorney by information with "contributory delinquency" and upon a separate trial was convicted. Before sentence he moved that the judgment be arrested on the ground that the information failed to state facts constituting a public offense. On this appeal he also complains of the admission of some evidence, of comments on the evidence by the court, and of instructions.
Since the information appears to be fatally lacking in substance it will not be necessary to pass on all the errors assigned. The information, omitting the introduction thereto, is as follows:
The Revised Code of 1928 became effective on July 1st, 1929, and before the commission of the act charged against defendant, and therefore contains the law governing the case. The prosecution is under section 4640 of that Code. The pertinent part of such section reads as follows:
"Any person who shall cause, encourage, or contribute to, the dependency or delinquency of a child, as these terms are defined by law, or who shall for any cause be responsible therefor, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
What is meant by "the dependency or delinquency of a child" must be determined, we think, by reference to other provisions of the statute. Looking to the law concerning juveniles, we find, in section 1928, Revised Code of 1928, chapter 64, Laws of 1929, definitions, for the purposes of such law, as follows:
"As herein used the words 'neglected child' shall mean a child under such age [18 years] who is destitute, homeless, abandoned, or dependent upon the public for support, or who has not proper parental care or guardianship; 'incorrigible children' shall mean children under such age who are charged by parent or guardian with being unmanageable, or who refuse to obey their parent or guardian in matters where such disobedience is a violation of law; 'delinquent child' shall mean a child under such age, including such as have heretofore been designated 'incorrigible children,' who may be charged with the violation of a law of this state or the ordinance of a town or city."
It will be noted that this section does not define a dependent child, but that is immaterial so far as the present case is concerned. What we are concerned with now is the definition of a delinquent child. We have such definition as one who is incorrigible...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hunt
...contributory delinquency count, under prior law it was necessary to prove that the child was in some way delinquent. Jackson v. State, 36 Ariz. 446, 286 P. 824 (1930); Durgelogh v. State, 37 Ariz. 258, 292 P. 1116 (1930). Allegations and/or proof of delinquency is not necessary under the pr......
-
Loveland v. State
...of 1933, and that if the information was drawn under the former it is fatally defective under the ruling of this court in Jackson v. State, 36 Ariz. 446, 286 P. 824, while if it purports to charge an offense under provisions of the law of 1933 it states no offense because the law itself fai......
-
Squaw Gulch Mining & Milling Co. v. Kollberg, Civil 2841
... ... Counsel for ... defendant have [36 Ariz. 446] not pointed out any particular ... errors in the admission of evidence, but merely state, ... "In support of this point, counsel reaffirms and directs ... the court's attention to all the matters and things ... included under point ... ...
-
Walker v. State, Criminal 892
... ... separate provisions of our code deal with contributing to the ... delinquency of a minor, the first being section 4640, ... supra, and the second chapter 91, Session Laws of ... 1933, which was obviously adopted to [55 Ariz. 401] cover a ... situation pointed out by us in the case of Jackson ... v. State, 36 Ariz. 446, 286 P. 824 ... Section ... 5005, Revised Code of 1928, points out the manner in which an ... information may be attacked on the ground that it was not ... subscribed by the county attorney. This method was not ... followed by defendant, and we have held ... ...