Glad v. State

4 Citing cases

  1. Fairbanks v. State

    123 S.E.2d 319 (Ga. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 10 times

    " Blackwell v. State, 48 Ga. App. 221 ( 172 S.E. 670). To the same effect see Funderburk v. State, 91 Ga. App. 373 ( 85 S.E.2d 640); Glad v. State, 85 Ga. App. 312 ( 69 S.E.2d 699); Bowling v. State, 62 Ga. App. 540 ( 8 S.E.2d 697); Brock v. State, 54 Ga. App. 403 ( 187 S.E. 906); Brock v. State, 51 Ga. App. 414 ( 180 S.E. 644). Code Ann. § 74-9902 further provides in part: "A child . . . abandoned by the father or mother shall be considered to be in a dependent condition when the father or mother charged with the offense does not furnish sufficient food and clothing for the needs of the child."

  2. Chapman v. State

    340 S.E.2d 237 (Ga. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 4 times

    Jemmerson v. State, supra at 114. Accord Glad v. State, 85 Ga. App. 312 ( 69 S.E.2d 699) (1952). In our view, appellant's regular exercise of his visitation rights under the circumstances in this case showed that he had received and recognized his minor children as his family after they had come into this state.

  3. Funderburk v. State

    85 S.E.2d 640 (Ga. Ct. App. 1955)   Cited 3 times

    There are two essential elements in the offense of abandonment of minor children: (1) desertion, that is, the wilful forsaking and desertion of the duties of parenthood; (2) dependency, that is, leaving such children in a dependent condition; and before a parent may be convicted of this offense, under the provisions of Code (Ann. Supp.) § 74-9902, there must be proof of both elements. Blackwell v. State, 48 Ga. App. 221 ( 172 S.E. 670); Glad v. State, 85 Ga. App. 312 ( 69 S.E.2d 699); Brock v. State, 51 Ga. App. 414, 418 ( 180 S.E. 644); Bowling v. State, 62 Ga. App. 540 ( 8 S.E.2d 697); Brock v. State, 54 Ga. App. 403 ( 187 S.E. 906). Under an application of the foregoing principle of law to the facts of the present case, the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, failed to establish the element of desertion, and consequently the trial court erred in denying the motion for a new trial based solely on the general grounds. The evidence shows the defendant to be a peripatetic painter by trade.

  4. Poole v. State

    208 N.W.2d 328 (Wis. 1973)   Cited 13 times
    Concluding that father's residence outside of Wisconsin at time of alleged act of abandonment and non-support did not preclude prosecution of father in Wisconsin

    — Judgment affirmed. See e.g., State v. Tickle (1953), 238 N.C. 206, 77 S.E.2d 632, certiorari denied (1954), 346 U.S. 938, 74 Sup.Ct. 378, 98 L.Ed. 426; Osborn v. Harris (1949), 115 Utah 204, 203 P.2d 917; State v. Wellman (1918), 102 Kan. 503, 170 P. 1052; State ex rel. Brito v. Warrick (1964), 176 Neb. 211, 125 N.W.2d 545, 548; State v. Carr (1966), 107 N.H. 477, 225 A.2d 178; State v. Klein (1971), 4 Wn. App. 736, 484 P.2d 455. But see Jemmerson v. State (1888), 80 Ga. 111, 5 S.E. 131; Glad v. State (1952), 85 Ga. App. 312, 69 S.E.2d 699.