State v. Westfall, No. 9507.
| Court | Supreme Court of West Virginia |
| Writing for the Court | FOX |
| Citation | 29 S.E.2d 6 |
| Parties | STATE . v. WESTFALL. |
| Decision Date | 15 February 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 9507. |
29 S.E.2d 6
STATE .
v.
WESTFALL.
No. 9507.
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Feb. 15, 1944.
[29 S.E.2d 6]
The verdict of a jury, finding a defendant guilty in a criminal case, based on evidence insufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond all reasonable doubt, should be set aside by the trial court, and a new trial awarded; and where a motion to set aside such verdict is overruled by the trial court, and judgment entered thereon, such judgment will be reversed, the verdict set aside here, and the case remanded for a new trial.
Error to Circuit Court, Roane County.
Joe Westfall was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a female child, and he brings error.
Judgment reversed, verdict set aside, and new trial awarded.
Wm. S. Ryan, of Spencer, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
FOX, Judge.
The defendant complains of the judgment of the Circuit Court of Roane County imposing upon him a fine and imprisonment, based upon the verdict of a jury finding him guilty of contributing to the delinquency of Dorothy Nichols, a female child of the age of fifteen years. A motion to set aside the verdict was overruled by the court, and judgment entered thereon as aforesaid, and to such action of the court we awarded this writ of error.
The sufficiency of the indictment is raised upon the motion to set aside the verdict, it being contended that the indictment is not sufficient, for the reason that it does not define any offense or act committed by the defendant, and does not sufficiently charge him with doing any unlawful act. We think the indictment is sufficient. It is based upon Section 7 of Article 7, Chapter 1, Acts of the Legislature, First Extraordinary Session, 1936 (Michie's Code, 49-7-7) as amended by Chapter 73, Acts of the Legislature, 1941. That section, as amended, provides that "A person who by any act or omission contributes to, encourages or tends to cause the delinquency or neglect of any child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not to exceed five hundred dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail for a period not exceeding one year, or both." The indictment charges that the defendant "did unlawfully cause, encourage and contribute to the delinquency of Dorothy Nichols, an infant child as such term with reference to children is defined in the statutes of the State of West Virginia, she, the said Dorothy Nichols, being then and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Turner v. McClure, No. 12914
...was not the act but the tendency to cause the delinquency that constituted the offense. In the case of State v. Westfall, 126 W.Va. 476, 29 S.E.2d 6, which was decided after Code, 49--7--7 was amended, it was held that the indictment under this statute was sufficient, but the indictment in ......
-
State v. Austin, No. 13684
...of and reasonably sure to befall a certain child in a reasonable time." 208 S.E.2d at 552-53. In State v. Westfall, 126 W.Va. 476, 29 S.E.2d 6 (1944), it was held that a contributing charge must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt and that it is necessary to prove that the defendant ......
-
State ex rel. Turner v. McClure, No. 12914
...was not the act but the tendency to cause the delinquency that constituted the offense. In the case of State v. Westfall, 126 W.Va. 476, 29 S.E.2d 6, which was decided after Code, 49--7--7 was amended, it was held that the indictment under this statute was sufficient, but the indictment in ......
-
State v. Austin, No. 13684
...of and reasonably sure to befall a certain child in a reasonable time." 208 S.E.2d at 552-53. In State v. Westfall, 126 W.Va. 476, 29 S.E.2d 6 (1944), it was held that a contributing charge must be proven beyond all reasonable doubt and that it is necessary to prove that the defendant commi......