{ "id": 5376318, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Curtis SEATON, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Seaton", "decision_date": "1965-11-01", "docket_number": "No. 7855", "first_page": "511", "last_page": "513", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "75 N.M. 511" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "407 P.2d 354" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "64 N.M. 300", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5346230 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/64/0300-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 N.M. 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5321495 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/73/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 A.L.R. 482", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 S.W.2d 739", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 Ky. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ky.", "case_ids": [ 2671164 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ky/280/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ariz. 9", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 8503740 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/27/0009-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Utah 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Utah", "case_ids": [ 8872626 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/utah/44/0039-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 414, "char_count": 6014, "ocr_confidence": 0.645, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.436057418262789e-08, "percentile": 0.27804594013010026 }, "sha256": "9da7f473f32b5ff62d7b088e3a12f984e356d181f4ad3739292f377ed488bafb", "simhash": "1:abbb077bfa6b633f", "word_count": 1028 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:05.656930+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "CARMODY, C. J., and CHAVEZ, J., concur. -" ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Curtis SEATON, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "COMPTON, Justice.\nAn information was filed against the defendant in Lea County, New Mexico, which charged that \u201c * * * Jerry Curtis Seaton \u25a0 did abandon his minor children, le\u00e1ving them without sufficient means of support, or did fail to provide for the support, as far as his ability extended, of his minor children, and thereby left them destitute, * * * \u201d The defendant waived a trial by jury. A trial to the cot\u00edrt resulted in his being found guilty as charged. Judgment was entered accordingly, and the cause is here by appeal.\nThe pertinent part of the statute under' which appellant was charged, \u00a7 40-2-4, N.M.S.A., 1961 Supp., since repealed, Laws 1963, Ch. 303, \u00a7 30-1, reads:\n\u201cIt shall be unlawful for a man to abandon his wife, minor child or minor children, leaving such persons without sufficient means of support, or for a man to fail to provide for the support, as far as his ability extends, of his wife, minor child or minor children and thereby leave such persons destitute. * * * \u201d (Emphasis supplied)\nThe finding and judgment read:\n\u201cTHE COURT: I find the defendant guilty as charged in my opinion of abandonment by the father of these children every time he has means to provide them of the necessities of those children; especially when those necessities are being furnished by people who are not legally responsible to furnish them. I find that he had means to support these children or assist in their support in some way at all times. He had means enough to take on a new wife during that time. He says the hernia kept getting worse and kept him from working and earning any lively-l?ood. It happens that this Court has personal^, first-hand knowledge of hernias and their affects. In fact, I carried one for years and worked in the oil fields with doctors telling me that it would be liable to kill me at any time. They are not near as bad as a lot of people seem to think they are, they can be repaired. Certainly it is destitution on the part of this family when they had to come to relatives with no means of making their own way. And while they didn\u2019t probably actually go hungry, that wasn\u2019t because . of anything the mother could possibly do at the time and it wasn\u2019t because anything this father did, because relatives took them in and fed them and gave them a roof over their heads and that to me is destitution when they have to call on someone else outside their . own means to furnish them the necessities of life. It is the judgment and sentence of this Court that you be sentenced to not more than one year in the State Penitentiary at hard labor at Santa Fe, New Mexico, and you will remember sir, when you get out that your obligation still exists and that the moment you get out the obligation is there that you had better take care of it. That will be all.\u201d\nWhile appellant does not challenge the finding that he abandoned his minor children and left them without sufficient means of support, he raises a novel legal question, \u201cA family is not destitute if in fact it possesses the necessities of life, and a conviction of unlawfully abandoning and failing to support a family cannot be sustained when it is'shown that the family does indeed possess the necessities of life.\u201d If we understand appellant\u2019s position correctly, he contends that so long ,as his minor children are provided the necessities of life, irrespective of the source of support, they are not destitute within the meaning of the statute, and the conviction cannot stand.\nNo reported similar case in this jurisdiction has been cited, nor have we found one. As we construe the statute, it provides two ways by which' the offense may be committed. The elements of the former relate to the abandonment of wife and minor children, leaving them without sufficient means of support, while the latter elements relate to the failure by the husband to provide for their support according to his ability. The former deals with a physical abandonment while the latter relates to the insensibility or indifference to duty of the husband towards his family, as to leave them destitute. The statute differentiates between a husband who abandons his family without sufficient means of support and a husband who is able but fails to provide for their support to the extent of his ability and they are thereby left destitute.\nThe record is replete with evidence that appellant abandoned his minor children without sufficient means of support. The court so found, and this finding is not challenged. \u2022 The finding amply supports the judgment under attack and obviates a consideration and discussion of the question whether the evidence- must show that the minor children were destitute when appellant left them. Compare State v. Bess, 44 Utah 39, 137 P. 829; Shaw v. State, 27 Ariz. 9, 229 P. 395. Also see Annotation following Cox v. Commonwealth, 280 Ky. 94, 132 S.W.2d 739, 131 A.L.R. 482.\nAppellant makes the further contention that the court erred when he injected into the record and considered as evidence the statement relating to his own personal experience with a \u201chernia.\u201d It is asserted that this constituted prejudicial error. The trouble with this contention is that no objection was made at the time concerning the statement nor was the court\u2019s attention alerted in any manner to the fact that he possibly was committing error, thus giving him an opportunity to correct or clarify his statement. State v. Lott, 73 N.M. 280, 387 P.2d 855; State v. Barreras, 64 N.M. 300, 328 P.2d 74. The question raised being neither a jurisdictional question nor fundamental error, it cannot be raised here for the first time.\nThe judgment should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.\nCARMODY, C. J., and CHAVEZ, J., concur. -", "type": "majority", "author": "COMPTON, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Neal & Neal, Hobbs, for defendant-appellant.", "Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Frank Bachicha, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "407 P.2d 354\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Curtis SEATON, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 7855.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nNov. 1, 1965.\nNeal & Neal, Hobbs, for defendant-appellant.\nBoston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Frank Bachicha, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0511-01", "first_page_order": 567, "last_page_order": 569 }