Case Title: State v. Chintalapalli

Citation: 2000-Ohio-266

Docket Number: 19982688

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-02-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State v. Chintalapalli, 88 Ohio St.3d 43, 2000-Ohio-266.] 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. CHINTALAPALLI, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State v. Chintalapalli (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 43.] 
Criminal law — Offenses against the family — Nonsupport of dependents — Act of 
failing to provide child support occurs in at least two venues — R.C. 
2919.21(A)(2), construed. 
The act of failing to provide child support occurs in at least two venues: (1) the 
place where the defendant resides, and (2) the place where the defendant was 
required to perform a legal obligation.  (R.C. 2919.21[A][2], construed.) 
(No. 98-2688 – Submitted October 19, 1999 – Decided February 16, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Erie County, No. E-97-148. 
 
Anadaramagupta Chintalapalli and Laurie Chintalapalli were married in 
Bangalore, India, and moved to Sandusky in Erie County in 1979.  The 
Chintalapallis subsequently had two children; both children were born in Ohio.  
Mr. and Mrs. Chintalapalli divorced in 1985.  The divorce decree, given by the 
Erie County Court of Common Pleas, ordered Mr. Chintalapalli to make child 
support payments through the Child Support Enforcement Agency of Erie County, 
Ohio (“CSEA”). 
 
After the divorce, Mrs. Chintalapalli and the children moved to Erie, 
Pennsylvania, and Mr. Chintalapalli moved to an unknown location.  Mr. 
 
2
Chintalapalli did not make child support payments, and CSEA’s numerous 
attempts to contact and advise Mr. Chintalapalli of his arrearage were 
unsuccessful. 
 
Mr. Chintalapalli was tried in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas on 
three counts of nonsupport of dependents under R.C. 2919.21(A)(2).  Mr. 
Chintalapalli moved for acquittal under Crim.R. 29, contending that no evidence 
was offered to prove that he committed any offense in Erie County.  His motion 
was denied.  Mr. Chintalapalli was found guilty of all three counts and was 
sentenced to three consecutive terms of incarceration of eighteen months each. 
 
The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the acts of 
omission giving rise to the violations took place outside Ohio and, therefore,  that 
the trial court lacked jurisdiction.  Mr. Chintalapalli also assigned as error 
improper venue of the trial court, which error the court of appeals declared moot. 
 
The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary 
appeal. 
__________________ 
 
Kevin J. Baxter, Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant. 
 
Kreig J. Brusnahan, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
3
 
PFEIFER, J.  The issues in this case are whether the trial court in Erie County 
properly exercised jurisdiction over Mr. Chintalapalli even though he and his 
family resided outside Ohio when he failed to make required child support 
payments, and, if jurisdiction was present, whether venue was proper.  For the 
reasons that follow, we conclude that the trial court properly exercised jurisdiction 
over Mr. Chintalapalli.  We also conclude that Erie County was a proper venue for 
the trial. 
 
R.C. 2901.11(A)(4) provides that a person is subject to criminal prosecution 
and punishment in Ohio if “[w]hile out of this state, the person omits to perform a 
legal duty imposed by the laws of this state, which omission affects a legitimate 
interest of the state in protecting, governing, or regulating any person, property, 
thing, transaction, or activity in this state.” 
 
R.C. 2901.12(A) states that “[t]he trial of a criminal case in this state shall be 
held in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, and in the territory of 
which the offense or any element of the offense was committed.” 
 
R.C. 2919.21(A)(2) provides that no person shall abandon, or fail to provide 
adequate support to “[t]he person’s child who is under age eighteen * * *.” 
 
Mr. Chintalapalli does not dispute that he failed to support his children 
pursuant to a valid child support order and thereby violated R.C. 2919.21(A)(2).  
He argues that he cannot be prosecuted for that violation because it was not proven 
 
4
that the offense occurred within this state, relying on State v. Rosenstock (Dec. 7, 
1995), Franklin App. No. 95APA05-517, unreported, 1995 WL 723535, which 
stated that under R.C. 2919.21(A)(2), “failing to provide adequate support takes 
place where the criminal defendant resides because that is where a defendant’s 
failure to perform the required act fairly can be said to occur.”  We are not 
persuaded by this argument because Rosenstock did not consider the import of 
R.C. 2901.11(A)(4). 
 
R.C. 2901.11(A)(4) provides that a person may be convicted of a crime in 
Ohio, if “[w]hile out of this state, the person omits to perform a legal duty imposed 
by the laws of this state.”  Mr. Chintalapalli was obligated to pay child support 
through the CSEA, and his relocation to another state does not obviate that 
obligation. 
 
We conclude that the act of failing to provide support occurs in at least two 
venues:  (1)  the place where the defendant resides, see Rosenstock, and (2) the 
place where the defendant was required to perform a legal obligation,  R.C. 
2901.11(A)(4).  See State v. Gantt (1996), 201 Wis.2d 206, 548 N.W.2d 134.  Mr. 
Chintalapalli had an obligation to adequately support his children; he failed to do 
so.  R.C. 2919.21(A)(2).  Thus, at least one element of the offense occurred in this 
state.  R.C. 2901.11(A)(1).  Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not 
abuse its discretion by asserting jurisdiction over Mr. Chintalapalli. 
 
5
 
We turn now to the issue of whether venue was proper.  “In the prosecution 
of a criminal case, it is not essential that the venue of the crime be proved in 
express terms, provided it be established by all the facts and circumstances, beyond 
a reasonable doubt, that the crime was committed in the county and state as alleged 
in the affidavit.”  State v. Gribble (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 85, 53 O.O.2d 222, 263 
N.E.2d 904, paragraph two of the syllabus.  Venue is satisfied where there is a 
sufficient nexus between the defendant and the county of the trial.  State v. Draggo 
(1981), 65 Ohio St.2d 88, 92, 19 O.O.3d 294, 296, 418 N.E.2d 1343, 1346. 
 
Mr. Chintalapalli lived with Mrs. Chintalapalli in Erie County, Ohio.  Mrs. 
Chintalapalli gave birth to their children in Erie County.  The divorce decree that 
obligated Mr. Chintalapalli to make child support payments was issued in Erie 
County.  The CSEA collects the payments Mr. Chintalapalli is required to pay in 
Erie County.  When Mr. Chintalapalli does not make child support payments, part 
of that act occurs in Erie County.  These facts provide ample evidence to establish 
a sufficient nexus between Mr. Chintalapalli and Erie County.  We conclude that 
the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Erie County, Ohio, was a 
proper venue for this case.  Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is 
reversed, and the judgment of the trial court is reinstated. 
Judgment reversed 
and trial court judgment reinstated. 
 
6
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, BROGAN, F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG 
STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
JAMES A. BROGAN, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting for RESNICK, J.