State v. Peek

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Peek

146 S.E.2d 827, 266 N.C. 639, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1405

DecidedMarch 2, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 146 S.E.2d 827 (State v. Peek) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Peek, 146 S.E.2d 827, 266 N.C. 639, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1405 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Defendant relies principally upon the ■ assignment of error that the Presiding Judge did not properly define the word “wilful.” However, in the charge, the court stated: “ ‘Willful/ as used in the statute, means intentional or without a just cause, excuse or justification, and the element of wilfulness must exist at the time the charge is laid. In order to convict a defendant under this statute, the burden is on the State to show not only that he is the father of the child, and that he has refused or neglected to support and maintain it, but further, that his refusal or neglect was willful, without [640]*640just cause, excuse or justification after notice and request for support.”

Language to this effect was approved in the case of S. v. Stiles, 228 N.C. 137, 44 S.E. 2d 728 and S. v. Chambers, 238 N.C. 373, 78 S.E. 2d 209.

This was purely a question for the jury and there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict rendered below.

No error.

Moore, J., not sitting.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Cueiam.

Defendant relies principally upon the ■ assignment of error that the Presiding Judge did not properly define the word “wilful.” However, in the charge, the court stated: “ ‘Willful/ as used in the statute, means intentional or without a just cause, excuse or justification, and the element of wilfulness must exist at the time the charge is laid. In order to convict a defendant under this statute, the burden is on the State to show not only that he is the father of the child, and that he has refused or neglected to support and maintain it, but further, that his refusal or neglect was willful, without [640]*640just cause, excuse or justification after notice and request for support.”

Language to this effect was approved in the case of S. v. Stiles, 228 N.C. 137, 44 S.E. 2d 728 and S. v. Chambers, 238 N.C. 373, 78 S.E. 2d 209.

This was purely a question for the jury and there is ample evidence to sustain the verdict rendered below.

No error.

Moore, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E.2d 827, 266 N.C. 639, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-peek-nc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack