State v. McCaffrey
| Decision Date | 31 May 1896 |
| Citation | 69 Vt. 85,37 A. 234 |
| Parties | STATE v. McCAFFREY. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Orleans county court; Thompson, Judge.
William McCaffrey was convicted of a violation of the statute against truancy, and excepted. Exceptions overruled.
At the close of the evidence the respondent moved the court to order a verdict of not guilty, for that under the statute no prosecution can be had till the end of the school year, and upon the ground that there was no evidence tending to show that the said Mark McCaffrey had not been elsewhere provided with the same education during the time that the state's evidence tended to show that he was absent from school. The motion was overruled, and the respondent excepted. All the evidence was referred to. The evidence of the state tended to show: That during the school year beginning April 1. 1895, there was kept in the district where the respondent resided a lawful public school of three terms,— one term of 8 weeks, beginning May 6, 1895; one term of 10 weeks, beginning September 2, 1895; and one term of 10 weeks, beginning December 2, 1895. That the respondent had, at the beginning of said school year, and from thence continuously to the commencement of this prosecution, in his charge and under his control, his minor son, Mark, who, at the commencement of this prosecution and at the time of trial, was over 8 and under 15 years of age. That during said first term the respondent did not cause said Mark to attend said school continuously, but on several days permitted him to remain away therefrom; and that during said second term said Mark attended the same only 39 1/2 days, and that the first day he was absent from said term complaint was made in respect to such absence, and this prosecution was commenced. That said Mark, during all the time said three terms were in session, was mentally and physically able to attend school continuously, beginning with the first day of the school year and the first day of said first term, and that during all that time he had not acquired the branches required by law to be taught in the public schools; and that during the time he was absent he was not otherwise being furhished with the same education as was being furnished by said public school, or any education, and had not attended a public school 26 weeks continuously, in that school year, prior to the commencement of this prosecution. The respondent offered to show that "when he kept his son out of school he intended to send him, subsequently, to the Craftsbury Academy for a time and in a manner which would make twenty-six continuous school weeks, together with what he had attended continuously at the district school, and that he did subsequently send his child to the Craftsbury Academy, and that the child is now attending school there." This offer was excluded, and the respondent excepted. It was conceded that Craftsbury Academy was a school fully equal to that which the state claimed the respondent should have caused his son to attend. The respondent excepted to the failure of the court to charge that there was no proof but that the child was otherwise furnished with the education required.
O. S. Annis, State's Atty. H. F. Graham and Cook & Redmond, for respondent.
TYLER, J. Section 711, V. S., makes it the duty of a person having the control of a child between the ages of 8 and 15 years to cause such child to attend a public school at least 26 weeks in a year, such attendance to begin with the school year, and be continuous, unless the child is mentally or physically unable to attend, has already acquired the branches required to be taught in the public schools, or is otherwise being furnished with the same education.
1. The respondent does not contend that the law is unconstitutional in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. DeLaBruere
...defense." Defendants have the burden to establish an exception to the compulsory education responsibility. See State v. McCaffrey, 69 Vt. 85, 90-91, 37 A. 234, 235-36 (1896). They have failed to meet this As we indicated at the beginning of this opinion, defendants primarily rely on Chapter......
-
State v. St. Francis
...be put on the party who presumably has peculiar Our limited precedents are consistent with these general principles. In State v. McCaffrey, 69 Vt. 85, 37 A. 234 (1896), the defendant in a truancy prosecution argued that the State had failed to prove that his child had not received an equiva......
- State v. VanBuren
-
State v. Pilkinton
...also Commonwealth v. Renfrew, 332 Mass. 492, 126 N.E.2d 109, 110; Commonwealth v. Roberts, 159 Mass. 372, 34 N.E. 402; State v. McCaffrey, 69 Vt. 85, 37 A. 234, 235-236(4). But, in the final analysis, reported cases from other jurisdictions are of limited value because of differences in sta......
-
Functions of Government in Educational Control
...North Dakota ex rel. Haig v. Hauge, 37N.D. 583, 164 N.W. 289; Miller v. Kornset al., 107 Ohio St. 287, 140 N.E. 773; Statev. McCaffrey, 69 Vt. 85, 37 Atl. 234.18 Bissell v. Davidson et al., 65 Conn. 183,32 Atl. 348, 29 L.R.A. 251.19 Miller v. Korns et al., 107 Ohio St. 287,140 N.E. 773.20 H......