State v. Davis

23 Citing cases

  1. State v. Claycomb

    470 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. 2015)

    This was some evidence of what constitutes adequate support. Accord, State v. Reed, 181 S.W.3d 567, 570 (Mo. banc 2006) (โ€œ[T]he existence of a child support order is merely evidence of what constitutes โ€˜adequate supportโ€™ โ€); State v. Sellers, 77 S.W.3d 2, 4โ€“5 (Mo.App.2002) (โ€œ[A] child support order provides some evidence of what is adequate supportโ€; evidence defendant never provided direct financial support and only sporadically provided the children with in-kind help โ€œconstituted sufficient evidence that [the defendant] failed to provide adequate support to her childrenโ€); State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 416 (Mo.App.1984) (โ€œHere the state proved [the defendant] didn't provide a penny, but had financial assets well establishing his ability to support his son. In addition the support order provided some evidence of what was โ€˜adequateโ€™ โ€).

  2. State v. Claycomb

    470 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. 2015)

    This was some evidence of what constitutes adequate support.Accord, State v. Reed, 181 S.W.3d 567, 570 (Mo. banc 2006) (โ€œ[ T]he existence of a child support order is merely evidence of what constitutes โ€˜adequate supportโ€™ โ€); State v. Sellers, 77 S.W.3d 2, 4โ€“5 (Mo.App.2002) (โ€œ[A] child support order provides some evidence of what is adequate supportโ€; evidence defendant never provided direct financial support and only sporadically provided the children with in-kind help โ€œconstituted sufficient evidence that [the defendant] failed to provide adequate support to her childrenโ€); State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 416 (Mo.App.1984) (โ€œHere the state proved [the defendant] didn't provide a penny, but had financial assets well establishing his ability to support his son. In addition the support order provided some evidence of what was โ€˜adequateโ€™ โ€).

  3. State v. French

    No. W.D. # 58860, Consolidated with WD58861 (Mo. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2001)

    Although nonsupport is not defined in ยง 568.040 as a continuing course of conduct, in State v. Davis, this court found that "[t]he crime of nonsupport is continuous and a `violation at any time within the limitation period' justifies a conviction." 675 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Mo.App. 1984) (citing State v. Arnett , 370 S.W.2d 169, 174 (Mo.App. 1963)). Other Missouri cases list nonsupport as an example of an offense which involves a continuous course of conduct.

  4. State v. Nichols

    725 S.W.2d 927 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 8 times
    Stating that court records showing a defendant's failure to pay decretal support payments were relevant to the issue of the defendant's failure to meet his common-law duty of support, but were not determinative of whether the State made a submissible case against the defendant for non-support because the evidence did not establish whether the defendant paid child support in other ways within the statutory meaning of "support"

    Id. In State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410 (Mo.App. 1984) Judge Lowenstein lucidly analyzes the history of ยง 568.040 and the changes in its language. Defendant's argument โ€” the state failed to make a submissible case โ€” focuses on that part of the information charging him with failure to provide his daughter, Tammy Jean Nichols (Tammy), adequate support "between March 9, 1984 and March 9, 1985".

  5. In re Dixon

    245 B.R. 367 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2000)

    1997); Ford v. Ford, 867 S.W.2d 639, 641 (Mo.Ct.App.1993); State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 415 (Mo.Ct.App.1984); In re Marriage of D.M.S. and P.E.S., 648 S.W.2d 609, 615 (Mo.Ct.App.1983); Federbush v. Mark Twain Parkway Bank, 575 S.W.2d 829, 831 (Mo.Ct.App.1978); Sportsman v. Sportsman, 409 S.W.2d 787, 791 (Mo.Ct.App.1966). Rebound, Inc. v. Pugh (In re Bonner), 954 S.W.2d at 363.

  6. State v. Morovitz

    867 S.W.2d 506 (Mo. 1994)   Cited 27 times
    Noting the circuit court may direct a verdict of acquittal when there is insufficient evidence "from which reasonable persons could have found defendant guilty as charged"

    The fact the minor child does not suffer deprivation of necessary food, clothing, lodging, medical or surgical attention, or that such needs are being supplied by another, does not abrogate the parent's obligation under the statute. State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 415-16 (Mo.App. 1984). KNOWINGLY

  7. Rinehart v. Laclede Gas Co.

    607 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    Because "[t]he legislature is presumed to know the law that has been amended, and to have used particular words in light of prior judicial and legislative action," we presume the legislature knew that valuations by assessors, boards of equalization, and the Commission were presumed to be correct. State v. Davis , 675 S.W.2d 410, 415 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984) (citing City of St. Joseph v. Hankinson , 312 S.W.2d 4, 8 (Mo. 1958) ). In 1992 the legislature amended sections 138.060.1 and 138.431.3 RSMo. Cum. Supp. 1992 to insert the language: "There shall be no presumption that the assessor's valuation is correct."

  8. State v. Martin

    575 S.W.3d 764 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 6 times

    The variance between the total monthly support obligation of $ 458 referred to in the Amended Information and the amount of that obligation attributable to Son was not material. State v. Davis , 675 S.W.2d 410, 417 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984) (holding that a defendant convicted of criminal nonsupport was not prejudiced when there was an immaterial variance between the charging document and the evidence); State v. Arnett , 370 S.W.2d 169, 174-75 (Mo. App. 1963) ("One who is accused of stealing a fat hog should not be permitted to complain because the hog was lean."). The trial court did not err in overruling Martin's motion for judgment of acquittal because sufficient evidence supported a finding that Martin's arrearage, as it related to Son, was in excess of an aggregate of twelve monthly support payments required by court order.

  9. State v. Link

    167 S.W.3d 763 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times

    We have enumerated the elements of the crime of criminal nonsupport. See State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 416 (Mo.App.W.D. 1984). Criminal nonsupport is a class A misdemeanor, unless the person obligated to pay child support commits the crime of nonsupport in each of six individual months within any twelve-month period, or the total arrearage is in excess of five thousand dollars, in either of which case it is a class D felony.

  10. State v. Johnson

    79 P.3d 419 (Utah Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    At that time the statute provided, "`A parent commits the crime of nonsupport if such parent knowingly fails to provide, without good cause, adequate support which such parent is legally obligated to provide for his minor child.'" State v. Davis, 675 S.W.2d 410, 413-14 (Mo.Ct.App. 1984) (quoting Mo. Rev. Stat. ยง 568.040 (1978)). Unlike Utah's statute, Missouri's statute also provided, "`[s]upport' means food, clothing, lodging, and medical or surgical attention."