State ex rel. Meng v. Todaro

• Decision Date: 28 April 1954
• Docket Number: No. 33671,33671
• Citation: 161 Ohio St. 348,119 N.E.2d 281
• Parties: , 53 O.O. 252 STATE ex rel. MENG v. TODARO.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 348

161 Ohio St. 348

119 N.E.2d 281, 53 O.O. 252

STATE ex rel. MENG v. TODARO.

No. 33671.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

April 28, 1954.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A conviction for the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor will not be disturbed on appeal, where competent evidence was introduced at the trial showing that the defendant, a married man, 29 years of age and with a family, persistently associated with a 16-year old girl in such a way as to disrupt her life and morals.

2. A finding or adjudication in a separate proceeding that a minor is delinquent is not a condition precedent to the maintenance of a prosecution for contributing to the delinquency of the minor, where the affidavit filed against the one charged with contributing to the delinquency and the evidence on his trial shows that the minor is delinquent.

On November 24, 1951, Elroy Meng, father of Joan Meng, aged 17 years, filed an affidavit in the Juvenile Court of Ottawa County, charging that on or about January 5, 1951, one Frank Todaro caused, encouraged and contributed toward the delinquency of Joan, in that, as a married man, he associated with her and so deported himself as to injure and endanger her morals and health, and that he caused her to become pregnant and caused her to resist the reasonable control and guidance of her parents. At the same time, Elroy Meng filed an affidavit against his daughter Joan, charging her with being a delinquent child. There has never been a hearing on such charge.

Pursuant to an order for a change of venue, the matter came on for trial before the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Domestic Relations Division Juvenile Branch, on February 9, 1953, without the intervention of a jury.

The defendant, Frank Todaro, was found guilty and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment in jail and to a fine of $1,000.

On an appeal to the Court of Appeals, 92 Ohio App. 247, 109 N.E.2d 669, that court affirmed the judgment below, and the cause comes before this court as of right, motions to certify the record and to dismiss the appeal as of right having been overruled.

George S. Bradley, Toledo, for appellant.

Myron Rosentreter, Pros. Atty., Port Clinton, and Donald S. Wargowsky, Oak Harbor, for appellee.

ZIMMERMAN, Judge.

The principal errors of which defendant complains are that he could not be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor without a prior adjudication that the minor herself was delinquent, and that there was insufficient competent evidence to establish his guilt.

We have read the bill of exceptions throughout and find competent evidence showing that in the early part of January 1951, when Joan was 16 years old, she became acquainted with the defendant, who was then 29 years of age, married and with a family; that thereafter Joan and he kept company regularly and frequently; that he was a constant and devoted suitor with ample opportunity to exercise his affections to the fullest extent; that Joan had no male companions other than the defendant; that after Joan's parents discovered the true situation they remonstrated with the defendant and ordered him to stop...