Court Opinion

ID: 9714908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:48:55.609433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:29.631725
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur with the majority except for its analysis that IC 35-14-1-4 and IC 35-14-3-1 co-exist and are distinguished by the requirement of wilfulness in the latter.
I would instead find that IC 35-14-1-4 (Acts 1945, Ch. 218, § 4, as amended) is repugnant to IC 35-14-3-1 (Acts 1889, Gh. 201) and as such impliedly repealed the latter as it applies to “any person having the care, custody or control” of a minor.
While such repeals by implication are not favored, they should be found where the later is so repugnant to the earlier as to render them irreconcilable. Lloyd v. State (1979), Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1048; Freyermuth v. State ex rel. Burns (1936), 210 Ind. 235, 2 N.E.2d 399; Pennsylvania Co. v. Dunlap (1887), 112 Ind. 93, 13 N.E. 403.
As to that part I therefore concur in result.