MALLORY CHAVERS
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reversed a conviction for child neglect, holding that the State failed to prove the child lacked necessities. The court emphasized that criminal proceedings are not a substitute for civil actions to compel child support.
No, the State failed to prove the child lacked necessities. Therefore, the conviction cannot stand.
“On the trial the State failed to meet the rule enunciated in the case of Stedman v. State, 80 Fla. 547, 86 Sou. 428, and in Fekany v. State, 121 Fla. 51, 163 So. 221.”
Establishes the State's failure to meet the required legal standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant was convicted of child neglect. The child was an infant, approximately three weeks old, living with its mother and grandparents. The rec…
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.
Under writ of error we review judgment of conviction of the offense denounced by Section 5469 R. G. S„ 7654 C. G. L.
On the trial the State failed to meet the rule enunciated *471in the case of Stedman v. State, 80 Fla. 547, 86 Sou. 428, and in Fekany v. State, 121 Fla. 51, 163 So. 221.
The record shows that the child was an infant, about three weeks old living with its mother and her parents and the record fails to show that the child did not have what its necessities require.
This statute or proceeding thereunder may not be used as a substitute for civil proceedings to compel husband to contribute a reasonable part of his earnings toward the support of his family. See McBrayer v. State, 112 Fla. 451, 150 So. 736.
The judgment should be, and is, reversed.
So ordered.
Terrell, C. J., and Thomas, J., concur.
Whitfield, P. J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justice Brown and Chapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sharon v. State, 156 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…ppellate court merely examines the record with the view of determining whether or not substantial evidence to support the verdict is present and should evidence of that character be found, to affirm the verdict. See: Thornton v. State, 141 Fla. 471, 193 So. 537; Zalla v. State, Fla.1952, 61 So. 2d 649. The record in the instant case has been examined, in light of the foregoing principles, and there appears substantial evidence to support the verdict. The last proposition is that the sentences were imprope…
Authorities Cited
- Schultz v. State, 80 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1920)
- Stedman v. State, 80 Fla. 547 (Fla. 1920)
- McBrayer v. State, 112 Fla. 415 (Fla. 1933)
- Fekany v. State, 121 Fla. 51 (Fla. 1935)