From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Embry v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jan 26, 1951
229 Ind. 179 (Ind. 1951)

Opinion

No. 28,668.

Filed January 26, 1951.

1. SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS — Public Schools — Compulsory Attendance — Children Between Seven and Fifteen Required To Attend School. — With certain exceptions, every child in Indiana between the ages of seven and fifteen years is required by law to attend school during the time schools are in session. Burns' 1948 Replacement, § 28-505; Burns' 1948 Replacement (1949 Supp.), § 28-505b.p. 181.

2. INFANTS — Custody and Protection — Criminal Prosecutions for Protection — Contributing to Child Delinquency — Elements of Crime — Scienter — Must Be Charged in Indictment. — An indictment charging that defendants unlawfully caused and encouraged a minor to knowingly violate the compulsory attendance law was insufficient because the statute makes knowledge, or scienter, an essential element of the crime, and the indictment must charge that defendants knowingly caused and encouraged a minor to violate the law. Burns' 1942 Replacement (1949 Supp.), § 10-812; Burns' 1948 Replacement, § 28-505; Burns' 1948 Replacement (1949 Supp.), § 28-505b.p. 181.

3. INDICTMENT AND AFFIDAVIT — Requisites and Sufficiency — Scienter — Must Be Charged If an Element of the Crime. — When a statute makes knowledge, or scienter, an essential element of an offense, such knowledge on the part of the accused must be charged in the indictment or affidavit. p. 181.

4. INFANTS — Custody and Protection — Criminal Prosecutions for Protection — Contributing to Child Delinquency — Indictment — Requisites and Sufficiency — Same Standards Apply as in Other Crimes. — The sufficiency of the indictment charging an accused with unlawfully causing or encouraging children to violate the law is to be determined by applying standards no less exacting than those which govern the sufficiency of other criminal accusations. Burns' 1942 Replacement (1949 Supp.), § 10-812. p. 181.

From the Warrick Circuit Court, Waldo Hendrickson, Special Judge.

Arvey Embry and others were convicted of contributing to child delinquency, and they appeal.

Reversed with instructions.

Addison M. Beavers and Kenneth W. Weyerbacher, both of Boonville, for appellants.

J. Emmett McManamon, Attorney General; Charles F. O'Connor and Merl M. Wall, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellee.


An indictment entitled an "Indictment for Contributing to Child Delinquency" was returned against the appellants. They were tried by jury in the Warrick Circuit Court. From an adverse verdict, they appeal.

Omitting the formal parts, the indictment charges that said defendants, "on the 27th day of September, A.D., 1949, at said County and State aforesaid, did then and there, unlawfully cause and encourage, one Shirley Joe Ahrens, a girl under the age of sixteen years, to-wit: thirteen years, to unlawfully and knowingly violate the compulsory school attendance law, by preventing her from attending a public school while such school was in session," contrary, etc.

The defendants moved to quash the indictment on the grounds that the facts stated in the indictment do not constitute a public offense and that the indictment does not state the offense charged with sufficient certainty. The motion was overruled, and the correctness of that ruling is the first question presented.

Burns' 1942 Replacement (1949 Supp.), § 10-812 provides that:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or encourage any boy under the full age of eighteen (18) years, or any girl under the full age of eighteen (18) years, to commit any act which would cause such boy or girl to become (a) delinquent child as defined by the laws of this state;

". . .

"Or for any person to knowingly encourage or contribute to or in any way cause any such boy or girl to violate any law of this state or ordinance of any city;

". . ."

Every child between the ages of 7 and 15 years, with exceptions not here important, is required by law to attend school during the time the public schools are in session. Burns' 1948 1. Replacement, § 28-505, as affected by Burns' 1948 Replacement (1949 Supp.), § 28-505b.

The indictment was apparently intended to charge the appellants, under § 10-812, supra, with knowingly causing and encouraging a minor to violate the law just referred to. 2, 3. An examination of the record seems to indicate that the case was tried on that theory. The indictment is not sufficient for that purpose, for the statute makes such conduct an offense only when it is knowingly done. It is true the indictment charges that the appellants caused and encouraged the minor to knowingly violate the law, but that does not satisfy the requirements of the statute. When a statute makes knowledge, or scienter, an essential element of an offense, such knowledge on the part of the accused must be charged in the indictment or affidavit. Williams v. The State (1850), 2 Ind. 439; State v. Bridgewater (1908), 171 Ind. 1, 8, 85 N.E. 715; Marsh v. State (1937), 104 Ind. App. 377, 8 N.E.2d 121; Mayhew v. State (1920), 189 Ind. 545, 128 N.E. 599.

The sufficiency of an indictment under § 10-812, supra, should be determined by applying standards no less exacting than those which govern the sufficiency of other criminal 4. accusations. Cf. Pease v. State (1921), 74 Ind. App. 572, 129 N.E. 337.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded with instructions to sustain the motion to quash.

NOTE. — Reported in 96 N.E.2d 274.


Summaries of

Embry v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jan 26, 1951
229 Ind. 179 (Ind. 1951)
Case details for

Embry v. State

Case Details

Full title:EMBRY ET AL. v. STATE OF INDIANA

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Jan 26, 1951

Citations

229 Ind. 179 (Ind. 1951)
96 N.E.2d 274

Citing Cases

Davidson v. State

The court held that scienter, or the knowledge, had reference only to the places enumerated in the statute,…

Wedmore et al. v. State of Indiana

§ 10-812, supra. See Embry v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 179, 96 N.E.2d 274; Murphy v. State (1916), 61 Ind. App.…