State v. Morgan

• Decision Date: 06 June 1912
• Citation: 136 N.W. 521,155 Iowa 482
• Parties: STATE v. MORGAN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

155 Iowa 482

136 N.W. 521

STATE

v.MORGAN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 6, 1912.

Appeal from District Court, Polk County; Charles A. Bradshaw, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion. Reversed.George Cosson, Atty. Gen., and John Fletcher, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SHERWIN, J.

The defendant is now, and has been since January, 1906, the husband of Martha E. Morgan. In May, 1909, he was indicted for refusing and neglecting to maintain and provide for his wife; and he was later convicted under said indictment and sentenced to the penitentiary, where he served his term. After his discharge therefrom, he returned to Des Moines, his former home, and the home of his wife, and has since said time, without good cause, willfully neglected and refused to maintain and provide for his wife, although she has been and is in a destitute condition. On the 20th day of March, 1911, the indictment in this case was returned against the defendant, charging that on or about the 1st day of May, 1910, and up to the time of filing the indictment, the defendant did willfully, and without good cause, desert and refuse to maintain and provide for his said wife; she being then in a destitute condition. Pleas of not guilty and of a former adjudication were entered by the defendant, and at the close of the evidence the court, on the defendant's motion, directed a verdict of not guilty, on the ground alone of former conviction. The state appeals.

The only question presented on this appeal is whether a person, who has once been convicted and punished for willfully neglecting and refusing to maintain and provide for his wife, under section 4775a of the Code Supplement, can be again tried and punished for refusing and neglecting to maintain and provide for her, after the expiration of his former sentence. The question is not entirely free from doubt; but we reach the conclusion that the finding of the trial court is not in accord with the legislative intent, as the same is expressed in the entire act under consideration, nor in accord with the construction which this court has, in effect, heretofore given the statute.

So far as material here, section 4775a reads as follows: “Every person who shall, without good cause, willfully neglect or refuse to maintain or provide for his wife, she being in a destitute condition, or who shall, without good cause, abandon his or her legitimate or legally adopted child or children under the age of sixteen years, leaving such child or children in a destitute condition, or shall, without good cause, willfully neglect or refuse to provide for such child or children, they being in a destitute condition, shall be deemed guilty of desertion.” This section clearly makes it a crime to neglect or refuse to maintain or provide for the wife, or to abandon the child or children, or to neglect or refuse to provide for such child or children. By...