Court Opinion

ID: 9764781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:39:43.99801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:01.507901
License: Public Domain

CRANDALL, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent.
The majority opinion would require the child to testify against her father in order for the State to make a submissible case. I do not believe that requirement is either desirable or necessary. Further, if Tammy had been deprived of adequate food, clothing, etc., her father could have been found guilty of non-support, even under the majority opinion. Thus the defendant benefits from the fact that Ruth has provided all necessary expenses for their child. That is clearly not the intent of the present nonsupport statute. State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 415-416 (Mo.App.1984).
Ruth provided for all necessary expenses for the child. During the time in question defendant made no payments, either to Ruth or to the court. To speculate that defendant made payments directly to the child or possibly to third parties for the benefit of the child, gives him the benefit of a defense without any evidence to support it.
The proof in this case is sufficient for the trier of fact to be, “firmly convinced of defendant’s guilt.” I would affirm the conviction.