State v. Sneed

• Decision Date: 06 November 1929
• Docket Number: (No. 325.)
• Citation: 150 S.E. 197,197 N.C. 668
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE . v. SNEED.

150 S.E. 197

(197 N.C. 668)

STATE .

v.SNEED.

(No. 325.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 6, 1929.

Appeal from Superior Court, Durham County; Barnhill, Judge.

C. W. Sneed was convicted of abandonment, and he appeals. No error.

This is a criminal action against the defendant for abandonment under C. S. § 4447.

Mrs. C. W. Sneed testified in part: That she married the defendant May 7, 1927, in DeLand, Pla.; that her home had been in Daytona, Fla. She and her husband lived in Daytona until July 11, 1927, and went to At lanta, Ga. On January 1, 1928, in Atlanta, Ga., there was born to the union a boy. About three weeks after the birth of their child, her husband sent her back to Daytona, where she came from, until he could find work; that she lived there in "the small garage apartment of her mother's home." He was to go to Durham to find work and promised to send for her. She frequently heard from him while in Durham, but he did not send for her. She went to Durham on June 8, 1928, as she had nowhere else to stay, and he was her husband and she thought her place was with him. She stayed in Durham five days at the Washington Duke Hotel, where he registered her, and saw her husband while there and he paid her hotel bill, $15. He then took her and their child to Raleigh, and at the station in Raleigh he gave her $30 and sent her back. Said he did not want to live with her any longer and sent her back; that he had not told any one he was married and was out for a "big time." She came back to Durham, about September 14th, but did not write she was coming. She went to the home of her husband in West Durham with her grip, but the defendant refused to let her stay there. He had contributed nothing towards her support for a week before she swore out the warrant. He gave her $154 from January to June, and $100 from June to September. She received a card from him, mailed at Winchester, Va. The message on the card was "Drunk again, still traveling, having a big time, Bill." The card was sent to Daytona Beach. She was there with her child at the time. The last time defendant contributed anything to her support was September 8, 1928. He had not contributed anything to her support or to the child's support since September 8, 1928. She came to Durham after she received the last remittance. Defendant did not give her anything the last time she was in Durham. The trial in recorder's court was on September 19th. She was working at a salary of $15 a week. She had no other means of support for herself and child. At the time she was making $15 a week, and she had to employ a nurse to look after the child; she had to pay her $10 a week.

The defendant introduced no evidence.

The jury rendered a verdict of guilty.' Judgment was rendered in the court below on the verdict, and the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error.

McLendon & Hedrick, of Durham, for appellant.

D. G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CLARKSON, J. The defendant assigns error:

The refusal of the court to allow the defendant's motion of nonsuit upon theground that, if any offense was committed, it was not committed in the state of North Carolina, and, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of this court.

We do not think the assignment of error can be sustained.

The law pertinent, C. S. § 4447, in part is as follows: "If any husband shall willfully abandon his wife without providing adequate support for such wife, and the children which he may have begotten upon her, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

There is no assignment of error to the charge of the court below. The major contention made by defendant was to the effect that, if any offense was committed, it was not committed in the state of North Carolina; therefore, the court had no jurisdiction.

The court charged fully the elements of the crime that the state had to establish beyond a reasonable doubt before the defendant could be convicted.

"There are two elements of this offense— willful abandonment, and failure to support —and both must be alleged and proved. State v. Toney, 162 N. C. 635, 78 S. E. 156; State v. May, 132 N. C. 1021, 43 S. E. 819; State v. Smith, 164 N. C. 476, 79 S. E. 979; State v. Hopkins, 130 N. C. 647, 40 S. E. 973. Abandonment is not a continuing offense, day by day (State v. Hannon, 168 N. O. 215, 83 S. E. 701), but the duty to support the wife is a continuing one during the existence of the marital union, and must...