Court Opinion

ID: 9849994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:50:37.36356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:30.057847
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Carlisle, Judge.
On motion to rehear the counsel for the plaintiff in error complains that this court has not fully set forth his contentions; that it is his position that the defendant could not be guilty of abandonment of an illegitimate child within the purview of Code § 74-9902 as amended because, under the evidence in this case, the defendant had never lived with the prosecutrix or the child or supported either of them, there was no evidence as to when the child was conceived, a child must be conceived before it can be abandoned, and there is no evidence in the case at bar “as to whether or not child 'conceived,' before or after, the alleged abandonment.'’'
This child was bom on August 4, 1959. The defendant was charged with the offense of abandonment on September 14, 1959, at which time the child was in life. The defendant stated that he “quit going with” the mother in May, 1959, before the child was 'bom. In the Bailey case, at the time the illegitimate child was born it was not a crime to abandon and fail to support such illegitimate child, but when the law became effective thereafter *128and the father continued the abandonment he was guilty. It thus appears that, abandonment being a continuing offense, it is not necessary to show support discontinued, but failure to support together with the other essentials of the offense is sufficient.

Rehearing denied.

Gardner, P. J., and Townsend, J., concur.