State v. Mitchell
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtRossman, J.
Defendant appeals his conviction for criminal nonsupport. ORS 163.555. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment on the grounds that, because the indictment did not allege that the failure to provide support was “without lawful excuse,” an element of the crime, the indictment did not state facts constituting an offense.1 We affirm.
ORS 163.555(1) provides:
“(1) A person commits the crime of criminal nonsupport if, being the parent, lawful guardian or other person lawfully charged with the support of a child under 18 years of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. JimCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
- State v. ShadleyCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
- State v. LangfordOregon Supreme Court · 1918
- State v. FrancisOregon Supreme Court · 1928
- State v. KeysCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1976
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. GeorgeCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985