RALPH E. FLOYD
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Ralph E. Floyd was convicted of deserting his minor child and withholding support. The Florida Supreme Court reversed because the evidence was insufficient to prove that Floyd had the means to support the child or could obtain such means, which are prerequisites for a criminal conviction under withholding-support statutes.
The conviction was reversed because the evidence was insufficient. A conviction for withholding means of support requires proof that the accused had the means of support or the ability to obtain them, and that the dependent had a need for support from the accused. The absence of such proof is fatal to conviction.
“'Withholding' the means of support means something more than failure to support or 'non-support.' It presupposes the existence or the ability to obtain the 'means of support' by the accused and 'need by the alleged dependent or dependents from whom support is withheld.”
Establishes the legal standard that withholding support requires proof of actual or potential ability to provide support
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFloyd and his wife were married in 1929 and had a child born April 21, 1930. The wife and child lived with the wife's parents both before and after th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Criminal Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case plaintiff in error was charged with the offense of deserting his minor child and withholding from said child the means of support.
There is no testimony in the record showing that the defendant either had or could procure employment by which *626he could provide for the support of the child. The testimony shows that the defendant in the court below and his wife, who was the prosecuting witness in the case, were married sometime in 1929 and the child was born April 21, 1930. The record further shows that the wife, both before and after her marriage, lived with her parents and that she had never made her home with the defendant at all.
The record shows that the child is being supported by its mother’s parents. Under the rule stated in Stedman v. State, 80 Fla. 547, 86 Sou. 428, the evidence in this case is not sufficient to warrant the conviction. There we said:
“At common law abandonment by or neglect of a husband to support his wife was not a criminal offense. 21 Cyc. 1611. The statutes' therefore making such acts indictable and punishable as a crime must be strictly construed. ‘Withholding’ the means of support means something more than failure to support or ‘non-support.’ It presupposes the existence or the ability to obtain the ‘means of support’ by the accused and 'need by the alleged dependent or dependents from whom support is withheld. That which has not existence, actual or potential, cannot be withheld; neither can that be withheld which is already possessed. The object generally of such statutes is to prevent the alleged dependents from becoming public charges. Statutes of this kind are not substitutes for statutes affording civil remedies in such cases. 21 Cyc. 1611; People, ex rel. Demos v. Demos, 100 N. Y. Sup. 968, 115 App. Div. 410; People, ex rel. Feeney v. Dershem, 79 N. Y. Sup. 612, 78 App. Div. 626; People v. Turner, 29 Cal. App. 193, 156 Pac. Rep. 381; State v. Thornton, 232 Mo. 298, 134 S. W. Rep. 519; Dalton v. State, 118 Ga. 196, 44 S. E. Rep. 977; Richie v. Commonwealth, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1237, 64 S. W. Rep. 979.”
*627See also Brooks v. Statem, 99 Fla. 1275, 128 Sou. 814; and Busch v. State, 97 Fla. 332, 120 Sou. 762.
It is' unecessary to discuss other questions presented. The judgment should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Revered.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield -and Terrell, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Darnell, 230 So. 2d 151 (Fla. 1970)…43 (Fla.1956). . 217 So. 2d 127, 128 (Fla.App. 3rd 1968). . 148 Fla. 109, 3 So. 2d 754 (1941). . 127 So. 2d 441 (Fla.1961). . 90 So. 2d 43, 45 (Fla.1956). . Fla.Stat. Chapter 88 (1969), F.S.A. . 90 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla.1956). . Floyd v. State, 115 Fla. 625, 627, 155 So. 794, 795 (1934): “The object generally of such statutes is to prevent the alleged dependents from becoming public charges.”…
Authorities Cited
- Schultz v. State, 80 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1920)
- Stedman v. State, 80 Fla. 547 (Fla. 1920)
- Brooke v. State, 99 Fla. 1275 (Fla. 1930)
- Busch v. State, 97 Fla. 332 (Fla. 1929)