LAW.coLAW.co

Jemmerson vs. The State of Georgia

Supreme Court of Georgia1888-02-13
80 Ga. 111

Summary

Holding. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the crime of child abandonment requires both the willful abandonment and the placement of the child in a dependent and destitute condition to occur within Georgia; since the evidence showed the abandonment occurred in Alabama, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Jemmerson's refusal to support the children after they arrived in Georgia constituted the offense.

Calvin Jemmerson was charged with abandoning his minor children in violation of Georgia law. The evidence showed that Jemmerson left his wife and five children in Alabama approximately five or six years before the indictment, providing no financial support. After the mother moved with the children to Georgia and notified Jemmerson of their dependent condition, he refused to support them. The trial court instructed the jury that Jemmerson could be found guilty based on his refusal to support the children after being notified of their arrival in Georgia, even though the initial abandonment occurred in Alabama.

The court reversed the conviction, holding that the crime of child abandonment requires two essential elements to occur within Georgia: the willful and voluntary abandonment of the children, and their placement in a dependent and destitute condition. Since the evidence established that the abandonment took place in Alabama, Georgia courts lacked jurisdiction over that element of the offense. A father's mere refusal to support children after they arrive in the state, following an abandonment that occurred elsewhere, does not constitute abandonment under Georgia law unless the father has received and recognized the children as his family after their arrival in the state.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

  • Territorial jurisdiction over the crime of child abandonment
  • Whether refusal to support children after parental abandonment in another state constitutes abandonment under Georgia law
  • Elements required to complete the offense of child abandonment

Procedural posture

Jemmerson was indicted for misdemeanor child abandonment, convicted after trial, and appealed on the basis that the trial court erred in its jury instructions.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Simmons, Justice.

Calvin Jemmerson was indicted by the grand jury of Muscogee county at the November adjourned term, 1887, for the offence of a misdemeanor, “for that the said Calvin Jemmerson, on the 10th day of February, 1887, in the county aforesaid, then and there did wilfully and voluntarily abandon his minor children, Eddie, Cook, Anna, Ella and Mary, leaving said children in a dependent and destitute condition.” To this indictment he pleaded not guilty. On the trial of the case, the State introduced the wife of the defendant, and she testified “ that about five or six years ago, she was living with Calvin Jemmersonin Russell county, Alabama; that without any cause, said Calvin left her and the children, being minors, one now sixteen, one fourteen, one ten, and one seven years old; that he left the children in Russell county and came to Columbus, Georgia; that he had not contributed anything to the support or maintenance of said minor children, though often solicited by her to do ,so; that the children, when left by said Calvin, were in a dependent or destitute condition, and they would have suffered but for her. own exertions in supporting them; that she had worked for them until she was no longer able to support them by her own labor; that about Christmas, 1886, she came to Columbus, Georgia, and brought the children with her, still being minors and dependent or destitute, and she at once, about 1st January, 1887, notified said Calvin of her removal and residence with the children in Columbus, Georgia, and asked him to support them; that he refused to do so, and said he would do nothing for them, and he did nothing for them until after the findingof the special presentment by the grand jury, and then very little, only the giving them a little clothing; that he never has furnished any money or provisions for his children; and that they are Calvin Jemmerson’s children, and the witness is his wife.”

Defendant’s counsel requested the court to charge the jury that, “ if the abandonment took place originally in the State of Alabama, defendant could not be convicted in Georgia, even though the mother moved with the minor children in a dependent- or destitute condition into Mus cogee county, Georgia, and after said removal notified said Calvin of the same, and he still refused to support or maintain said children.” This charge the court refused to give, but charged the jury that, if the abandonment in the first instance was in the State of Alabama, and the mother of the children and wife of the accused moved during last year to Muscogee county, Georgia, and brought the children, and after being domiciled here notified Calvin. Jemmerson of the removal, and of the dependent or destitute condition of said children, and after that said Calvin Jemmerson failed and refused to support and maintain said children, he was guilty of abandoning said children in the county of Muscogee.” Under the charge of the court, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the defendant was sentenced to a term of twelve months in the chain-gang; whereupon he filed his bill of exceptions, alleging as error the refusal to charge as requested, and the charge of the court as given.

We think the court erred in refusing to give the charge as requested by the plaintiff in error, and in giving the charge set out in the record. Before the State can convict of this offence, two things must affirmatively appear: (1) the wilful and voluntary abandonment of a child by its father; (2) the leaving of the child in a dependent and destitute condition. It is not only necessary that these two things should affirmatively appear, but it also must appear that they occurred in this State. It appears from the testimony in this case that the abandonment of the children took place in Alabama, five or six years before the finding of this indictment. That is one of the main ingredients of the offence charged; but of that part of the offence the courts of this State had no jurisdiction. And we do not think that the refusal of the father to support the children, when notified of their condition by the mother, in this State, subsequent to the abandonment in Alabama, and the removal of the mother to this State, would be such an abandonment as contemplated by the code (§4373). The abandonment is something more than “ leaving them in a dependent and destitute condition.” It means the, forsaking and desertion of the children; the refusal of the father to live where they are domiciled, and to perform the duties of a parent to his offspring. If he abandons them in this manner in this State, and leaves them dependent and destitute, the offence is complete. If he abandons them in another State, and they subsequently come into this State and are dependent and destitute, the offence is not complete, although the father has knowledge of their condition, unless he had received them and recognized them in some way, as his family, after they had come into this State. We therefore hold that the court erred in not giving the charge as requested, and’ in giving the charge as set out in the record.

We desire to call attention of the profession to an error in the codification of this act. The act of 1866 uses the word and between dependent and destitute. The code uses the word or. This court decided in the case of McDaniel vs. Campbell, at the October term, 1886, that the act of 1866 should be followed in indictments under this section. 78 Ga. 188.

Judgment reversed.