State v. Ray
| Decision Date | 16 May 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 523.) |
| Citation | 143 S.E. 216 |
| Parties | STATE . v. RAY. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Yancey County; Moore, Judge.
Dewey Kay was convicted of nonsupport of child, and he appeals. New triaL
Charles Hutchins, of Burnsville, for appellant.
Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State.
The first count in the indictment charges the defendant with the willful abandonment of his wife and children. C. S. § 4447, amended by P. L. 1925, c. 290; State v. Bell, 184 N. C. 701, 115 S. E. 190. The second charges him with willful neglect to provide adequate support for his wife and "the children which he, the said Dewey Ray, upon the body of his said wife had theretofore begotten." The jury returned this verdict: "Not guilty of abandonment—guilty as to nonsupport of the child." There is evidence tending to show that the child referred to is illegitimate. The following instruction was given the jury:
This instruction withholds from the jury all consideration of the question whether the defendant is the father of the child. Conviction was resisted primarily on the ground that the child had been begotten after the separation between the defendant and his wife had taken place. This contention was directly relevant to the alleged willfulness of the nonsupport. State v. Johnson, 194 N. C. 378, 139 S. E. 697. At the time of the trial the child referred to in the verdict was only ten weeks old. The statute does not impose upon a husband the burden of supporting another man's offspring. Indeed, the indictment limits this inquiry to the willful abandonment of the defendant's own children.
For the error assigned there must be a new trial.
New trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrington v. Harrington
...§ 14.80 (2d ed. 1945). Nor is he required to support his wife's offspring born during marriage but not begotten by him. State v. Ray, 195 N.C. 628, 143 S.E. 216. We recognize that in some situations a husband (or other person) may by actions and conduct place himself in loco parentis. But t......
-
Pott v. Pott
...assumed such an obligation. See Duffey v. Duffey, 113 N.C.App. 382, 384-385, 438 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1994); State v. Ray, 195 N.C. 628, 629, 143 S.E. 216, 216 (1928). Indeed, the General Assembly has expressly recognized "the [trial] judge may not order support to be paid by a person who is no......
-
Wright v. Gann
...father has the duty to support his child and not the woman's husband. State v. Wade, 264 N.C. 144, 141 S.E.2d 34 (1965); State v. Ray, 195 N.C. 628, 143 S.E. 216 (1928). North Carolina does not impose upon a husband the burden of supporting another man's offspring. The legislature, by enact......
-
Duffey v. Duffey
...support for his stepchildren. In North Carolina, there is no duty for a person to support stepchildren. As stated in State v. Ray, 195 N.C. 628, 629, 143 S.E. 216 (1928), "the [law] does not impose upon a husband the burden of supporting another man's offspring." However, one can become lia......