State v. Vanderlip
| Decision Date | 21 November 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 508.,508. |
| Citation | 35 S.E.2d 885,225 N.C. 610 |
| Parties | STATE. v. VANDERLIP. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Richard D. Dixon, Special Judge.
James H. Vanderlip was convicted of willfully becoming the father of an illegitmate child and failing and refusing to provide adequate means of support, and he appeals.
Reversed.
It was evidently intended to charge the defendant with the violation of G.S. § 49-2 (Ch. 228, Public Laws, 1933, as amended), relating to the support of illegitimate children. The warrant upon which the defendant was tried charged that he "did wilfully, maliciously, unlawfully and feloniously become the father of an illegitimate child by the name of James H. Forbes, who was born on the 11th day of August, 1943, and has failed and refused to provide adequate means of support for the said child." The verdict upon the issues submitted was against the defendant and judgment of imprisonment predicated thereon was pronounced, and defendant moved in arrest of judgment, which motion was denied and exception noted. The defendant appealed, assigning errors.
Henry L. Strickland, of Charlotte, for defendant.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and Hughes J. Rhodes, Ralph M. Moody, and J. E. Tucker, 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." Willfulness of the neglect or refusal to provide adequate means of support of the illegitimate child is one of the essential elements of the offense, and must be charged in the warrant. State v. Cook, 207 N.C. 261, 176 S.E. 757; State v. McLamb, 214 N.C. 322, 199 S.E. 81.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hammonds
...Scott, N.C., 84 S.E.2d 654; State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E.2d 166; State v. Johnson, 226 N.C. 266, 37 S.E.2d 678; State v. Vanderlip, 225 N.C. 610, 35 S.E.2d 885; State v. Tarlton, 208 N.C. 734, 182 S.E. 481; State v. Tyson, 208 N.C. 231, 180 S.E. 85; State v. May, 132 N.C. 1020, 43 ......
-
State v. Robinson
...he wilfully neglects to support his child. State v. Cook, supra; State v. Mansfield, supra; State v. Stiles, supra; State v. Vanderlip, 225 N.C. 610, 35 S.E.2d 885; State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E.2d 166; State v. Hayden, 224 N.C. 779, 32 S.E.2d 333; State v. Coppedge, 244 N.C. 590, 9......
-
State v. Morgan
...child must be wilful and it must be so charged in the warrant or bill of indictment. The omission of such allegation is fatal. State v. Vanderlip, supra; State Hayden, 224 N.C. 779, 32 S.E.2d 333; State v. McLamb, supra; State v. Clarke, supra; State v. Tarlton, supra; State v. Tyson, supra......
-
State v. Doughtie
...the warrant or indictment fails to charge the essential elements of the offense a motion in arrest of judgment will lie. State v. Vanderlip, 225 N.C. 610, 35 S.E.2d 885; State v. Phillips, 228 N.C. 446, 45 S.E.2d Any defect in the process by which a defendant is brought into court may be wa......