State v. Clarke, 290.
| Decision Date | 19 November 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 290.,290. |
| Citation | 220 N.C. 392,17 S.E.2d 468 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. CLARKE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Catawba County; Wilson Warlick, Judge.
Everette Clarke was convicted for failure to support an alleged illegitimate child, and he appeals.
Error and remanded.
The defendant was charged with violation of Chap. 228, Public Laws 1933, as amended, relating to the support of illegitimate children. The warrant upon which defendant was tried charged "that Everette Clarke on or about the 22nd day of May, 1939, in Catawba County, Hickory Township, City of Hickory, did unlawfully and wilfully beget upon the body of Mildred Cody a child, now four months of age, same being an illegitimate child, and has failed, neglected and refused to provide adequate support of said child, against the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State."
The verdict upon issues submitted was against the defendant, and from judgment imposing sentence predicated thereon defendant appealed.
W. H. Strickland, of Lenoir, for appellant.
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen, and T. W. Bruton and Geo. B. Patton, Asst. Attys. Gen, for the State.
The statute under which the defendant was tried provides that, "Any parent who willfully neglects or who refuses to support and maintain his or her illegitimate child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to such penalties as are hereinafter provided."
Wilfulness is one of the essential elements of the offense. This must be charged in the warrant. State v. Cook, 207 N.C. 261, 176 S.E. 757; State v. Spillman, 210 N.C. 271, 186 S.E. 322. Its omission is not cured by C.S. § 4623, State v. Tyson, 208 N.C. 231, 180 S.E. 85, or by amendment after verdict, State v. Tarlton, 208 N.C. 734, 182 S.E. 481; State v. McLamb, 214 N.C. 322, 199 S.E. 81.
The record in this case is not sufficient to support the judgment.
As the warrant fails to charge an offense under the statute, questions relating to the interpretation of other provisions of the statute are not presented or decided.
Error and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morgan
...the denial of his motion in arrest of judgment. Even so it raises a jurisdictional question which compels our attention. State v. Clarke, 220 N.C. 392, 17 S.E.2d 468. It a universal rule that no indictment, whether at common law or under a statute, can be good if it does not accurately and ......
-
State v. Doughtie
...and thus waived any defect in the prior proceedings.' Many of the cases relied upon by the defendant, for instance, State v. Clarke, 220 N.C. 392, 17 S.E.2d 468; State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E.2d 166; State v. Albarty, 238 N.C. 130, 76 S.E.2d 381 are not in point, for they are cases ......
-
Lovegrove v. Lovegrove
...of jurisdiction of which we must take judicial notice ex mero motu. Shepard v. Leonard, 223 N.C. 110, 25 S.E.2d 445; State v. Clarke, 220 N.C. 392, 17 S.E.2d 468; State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E.2d 166; State v. Jones, 227 N.C. 94, 40 S.E.2d 700; State v. Miller, 225 N.C. 213, 34 S.E.......
-
Medlin v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y.
... ... fireworks business incident to the State Fair, and repeated ... this experience in 1941; that in 1935 he signed a financial ... statement ... ...