Court Opinion

ID: 9808348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:35:03.487569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:27.102879
License: Public Domain

BarNHILl, J.,
dissenting: The Act under consideration was born in a confusion of ambiguous and conflicting language. The intent of the Legislature, particularly in respect to procedure, does not appear with that degree of clarity which should characterize all criminal statutes. Hence, the Court, whichever course it may take, must, to some extent, perform a legislative function by writing into the Act the intent it concludes the General Assembly had in mind.
With this in mind, I refrain from discussion. I merely note that in my opinion the three-year limitation applies only to a proceeding to establish the paternity of the child. Willful failure to support a child is a continuing offense. When the paternity is established within the stipulated period the putative father may be prosecuted at any time thereafter, at least until the child is fourteen years of age. Thus I read the statute.