{
  "id": 1414910,
  "name": "Dumbroski v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dumbroski v. State",
  "decision_date": "1936-02-17",
  "docket_number": "Crim. 3981",
  "first_page": "263",
  "last_page": "264",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ark. 263"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2382,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "sha256": "6cb2e00eeb81a7a8799339a566cbe8bae6a3abb225ce2e646ac9af8243f957a9",
    "simhash": "1:ca4617407c6742a5",
    "word_count": 441
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:15:38.173054+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dumbroski v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mehaffy, J.\nThis action was begun in the criminal division of the North Little Rock Municipal Court against the appellant, Ed Dumbroski, for wife and child abandonment. He was tried, convicted, and appealed to the circuit court of Pulaski County.\nOn October 17,1935, be was tried in the circuit court and convicted, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50, and the jury also made a finding that he was the father of the child of the prosecuting witness. He was tried under \u00a7 2596 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, and the circuit judge told the jury in one instruction: \u201cThe section of the law upon which this is based is as follows:\u201d, and then reads to the jury \u00a7 2596 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest.\nThis section of the digest was amended by act 331 of the Acts of 1923. The title of this act is as follows: \u201cAn act to amend \u00a7 2596 of Crawford and Moses\u2019 Digest of the statutes of the State of Arkansas.\u201d The act then provides that act 52 of the Acts of 1909, which is \u00a7 2596 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u201cbe and the same is hereby amended to read as follows.\u201d The act then changes \u00a7 2596 in several particulars. The age of the child in the original act is 12 years, and in the amended act, 14 years. The punishment was changed.\nIt therefore appears that \u00a7 2596 of the digest was not the law at the time of the trial, and the court erred in reading it to the jury as the law upon which the charge was based.\nIn each of two instructions given by the court the words \u2018 \u2018 without good cause \u2019 \u2019 were omitted. The jury was told in effect that if they believed beyond a reasonable doubt from the testimony in the case that the defendant was the father of the child and that he neglected and refused to provide for and support it, and abandoned the same, he would be guilty as charged. The jury should have been told that if he neglected and refused to provide for the child and abandoned the same, without good cause, he would be guilty as charged. This error is in both instructions numbers 5 and 6.\nIf appellant abandoned his wife and child and had good cause to do so, he would not be guilty.\nFor the errors indicated, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mehaffy, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fred A. Snodgress, for appellant.",
      "Carl E. Bailey, Attorney General, and Guy E. Williams, Assistant, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dumbroski v. State.\nCrim. 3981\nOpinion delivered February 17, 1936.\nFred A. Snodgress, for appellant.\nCarl E. Bailey, Attorney General, and Guy E. Williams, Assistant, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0263-01",
  "first_page_order": 283,
  "last_page_order": 284
}