Court Opinion

ID: 9849993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:50:37.360801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:30.053563
License: Public Domain

Carlisle, Judge.
The defendant was charged with the abandonment of his minor illegitimate child. The jury found him guilty and he filed a motion for a new trial on the general grounds and one special ground which was denied, and the exception here is to that judgment.
1. In the prosecution of one charged with abandonment of an illegitimate child under the provision of Code § 74-9902, as amended by the act approved March 17, 1956 (Ga. L. 1956, p. 800), one of the issues is paternity. It is competent as to this issue for the mother to exhibit the child to the jury. Sims v. State, 16 Ga. App. 211 (2) (84 S. E. 976); Posey v. State, 46 Ga. App. 290, 293 (167 S. E. 340). Accordingly, in this case the first special ground of the motion for a new trial complaining of the action of the trial judge in permitting the mother to exhibit the child to the jury is without merit.
2. Under the general grounds the defendant contends that he cannot be guilty of abandonment of an illegitimate minor child unless it be shown that he has lived with the mother, and he further contends that he cannot be convicted under such circumstances until the paternity of the child shall be established by his trial and conviction of the offense of bastardy under the provisions of Code § 74-9901. Both of these contentions are without merit. While under the provisions of *127Code § 74-9902 as amended, in order to convict one of abandonment of an illegitimate child, the additional issue of paternity may be injected into the case which is net ordinarily injected in cases of abandonment involving legitimate children, this issue may be tried by the jury in such prosecutions just as in prosecutions under Code § 74-9901. See Williams v. State, 213 Ga. 221 (98 S. E. 2d 373), and Bailey v. State, 214 Ga. 409 (105 S. E. 2d 320). The mother of the child in the instant case testified positively that the defendant was the father of the child. While there was evidence from which a contrary conclusion might have been reached, the jury resolved this issue against the defendant, and this court cannot say that it was not authorized by the evidence.
Decided January 19, 1960
Rehearing denied January 27,1960.
Casey Thigpen, for plaintiff in error.
Thomas A. Hutcheson, Solicitor, contra.

Judgment affirmed.

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