Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Salazar

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 30, 2007No. SC 88438Published

1Concurrence

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Sp.J.,

concurring in result.

Because the trial judge made clear that David Salazar’s conviction rested only on the default administrative order and that he did not conclude that David Salazar was *648the child’s biological father, I concur in the reversal of his conviction for failing to support this child.

The Missouri legislature has rightly enacted a law making it a crime for a parent to fail to provide adequate support for his or her child.1 The legislature has provided that for purposes of the criminal nonsupport statute, a “child” means:... any biological or adoptive child,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. YelliNebraska Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State Ex Rel. Sanders v. SauerSupreme Court of Missouri · 2006
  3. Smith v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. State v. HoyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
  5. State ex rel. State v. CampbellMissouri Court of Appeals · 1996

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API