GORDON WILLARD GRINER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Appellant appealed his conviction for withholding child support payments. The appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that the state failed to prove willful withholding and failed to establish that the minor child was in need of support, both elements required for conviction under Florida law.
The conviction was reversed because the state failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant willfully and intentionally withheld support, and failed to present evidence that the minor child was in need of support—both elements required for conviction under Florida law.
[1] A conviction for withholding support from a minor cannot rest upon suspicion, speculation, or conjecture.
[2] To sustain a conviction for unlawfully and willfully withholding support from a minor child, the prosecution must prove the child was in need of support.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is axiomatic in American jurisprudence that one charged of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt and that the burden of proof rests upon the State.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that the state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was obligated by divorce judgment to pay monthly child support for two minor children. He ceased support for the oldest child when it turned…
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 Presumption Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
BOYER, Chief Judge.
Appellant appeals conviction of the crime of withholding support from a minor.
The facts are not in conflict. Appellant was required by a final judgment of divorce to pay to his former wife monthly support payments for his two minor children. When the oldest child became 18 years of age appellant ceased his support of that child but continued making payments for his remaining minor child until December 16, 1974, on which date a check was mailed and subsequently cashed.
On February 6, 1975, an information was filed at the behest of appellant’s former wife, charging appellant with unlawfully and willfully withholding support from his minor child since December 16, 1974. At the trial, which was before the court without a jury, the child’s mother (appellant’s former wife) testified that she had received no support payments from appellant since December 16, 1974. Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, produced his checkbook containing his check stubs which reflected a check in the amount of the monthly support payment payable to his former wife dated February 5, 1975 and another in the same amount on March 7, 1975. Appellant testified that the first check was placed in his former wife’s mailbox on the date that it was written and that the latter was mailed. He had not balanced his checkbook and could not testify as to whether or not the checks had cleared his account. There was no evidence as to the needs of the child nor was there evidence that he had been deprived of any necessities of life.
It is axiomatic in American jurisprudence that one charged of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt and that the burden of proof rests upon the State. A conviction may not rest upon suspicions, speculation nor conjecture. Sub judice, the only evidence adduced in support of the charge was that the child’s mother did not receive the support pay ments. There was no evidence that appellant willfully and intentionally withheld support. (See Steadman v. State, 1920, 80 Fla. 547, 86 So. 428).
In fact, the only evidence in that regard was to the effect that payments were made by appellant though not received by the payee. In addition, to sustain a conviction of the crime of unlawfully and willfully withholding support from a minor child there must be a showing that the minor child was in need of support. (Steadman v. State, supra, and Broadnax v. State, Fla.1952, 57 So. 2d 651).
No such evidence was adduced.
Although not determinative, it is pertinent to note that the information charging appellant with a felony was filed when appellant was, by his former wife’s own testimony, less than sixty days in arrears.
The judgment and sentence here appealed are reversed with the directions that appellant be discharged.
It is so ordered.
SMITH, J. and SACK, MARTIN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Byrne v. State, 365 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)…e agree and reverse. For a conviction to be upheld under this statute, there must be a showing that the minor children were in need. Fekany v. State, 121 Fla. 51, 163 So. 221 (1935); Busch v. State, 97 Fla. 332, 120 So. 762 (1929); Griner v. State, 322 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Here, there was a clear absence of evidence to establish need and thus the evidence is legally insufficient. The purpose of the criminal statute is to prevent the abandonment of children and to keep the children from being a cha…
Authorities Cited
- Schultz v. State, 80 Fla. 564 (Fla. 1920)
- Stedman v. State, 80 Fla. 547 (Fla. 1920)
- Broadnax v. State, 57 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1952)