STATE v. ROBBINS

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 42052.

Attorney(S)

Fred S. LeBlanc, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank H. Langridge, Dist. Atty., Waverly A. Henning, Asst. Dist. Atty., Gretna, H. Charles Korn, New Orleans, Attorney assisting the State, for appellant. Jacob J. Amato, Gretna, for defendant-appellee.

Judges

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The State of Louisiana prosecuted Luther M. Robbins in the Juvenile Court, Parish of Jefferson, charging him with willfully neglecting to provide support for his two minor sons, aged 12 and 6, contrary to the state's criminal statute on neglect of family (Criminal Code, Article 74: LSA-R.S. 14:74). The defendant filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting that the Juvenile Court lacked authority because a prior judgment from the Chancery Court in Harrison County, Mississippi, had awarded alimony for the minors. This civil suit was pending in the District Court, Parish of Jefferson, and was filed before the criminal information. The Juvenile Court sustained the plea and dismissed the prosecution. The State appealed this dismissal to the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Juvenile Court has jurisdiction to prosecute a criminal charge of willful neglect to support minor children when a civil alimony judgment for the same children exists and a related civil suit is pending in the District Court.
Whether concurrent jurisdiction exists between Juvenile Court on a criminal nonsupport charge and District Court on civil alimony proceedings.
The extent to which compliance with a civil alimony order may serve as a defense in a criminal prosecution for nonsupport.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendant's Arguments

The Juvenile Court lacked jurisdiction because a civil judgment awarding alimony for the minor children had already been rendered by a Chancery Court in Mississippi.
The civil suit based on that judgment was pending in the District Court of Jefferson Parish prior to the criminal prosecution.

State's Arguments

This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State v. Galjour, 215 La. 553, 41 So.2d 215	Clarified that Juvenile Court has jurisdiction over criminal nonsupport charges and that such jurisdiction is not displaced by a civil alimony proceeding in District Court.	The Court relied on this precedent to reject the defendant's plea to the jurisdiction, emphasizing the distinction between criminal prosecution for nonsupport and civil alimony obligations, and confirming that compliance with civil alimony orders can be a defense but does not deprive Juvenile Court of jurisdiction.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the jurisdictional issue by distinguishing the nature of the two proceedings: the Juvenile Court's criminal prosecution for willful neglect of family under the Criminal Code, and the District Court's civil alimony proceeding grounded in parental support obligations under the Civil Code. The Court held that concurrent jurisdiction does not exist; the Juvenile Court's jurisdiction over criminal nonsupport charges is independent of the civil alimony case. The existence of a civil alimony judgment and pending suit does not deprive the Juvenile Court of jurisdiction. However, the defendant may present evidence of compliance with the civil alimony order as a defense in the criminal case. Based on this legal framework and the precedent set in State v. Galjour, the Court found no merit in the defendant's plea to the jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

The Court annulled and set aside the Juvenile Court's judgment sustaining the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the prosecution. The plea to the jurisdiction was overruled, and the case was remanded to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings according to law.

The direct effect is to allow the criminal prosecution for nonsupport to proceed despite the existence of a civil alimony judgment and pending civil suit. The decision clarifies the distinct and non-exclusive jurisdictional roles of Juvenile and District Courts in matters of criminal nonsupport and civil alimony, respectively. No new precedent beyond the reaffirmation of State v. Galjour was established.

Show full summary ...

STATE OF LOUISIANA v. LUTHER M. ROBBINS.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The State of Louisiana is appealing from the judgment of the Juvenile Court, Parish of Jefferson, maintaining a plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing its prosecution of the defendant, Luther B. Robbins, on a bill of information charging Robbins with wilfully neglecting to provide for the support of his two minor sons, aged 12 years and 6 years, they being in necessitous circumstances, contrary to the form of the statute of this State, Criminal Code, Article 74: LSA-R.S. 14:74, defining criminal neglect of family and providing a penalty therefor.

The defendant's plea that the Court below was without jurisdiction in this cause was founded on his statement that a judgment had been rendered in Chancery Court, Harrison County, Mississippi, awarding alimony for the two minors, a certified copy of which was attached to and formed the basis of a suit then pending against him on the civil docket of the District Court, Parish of Jefferson — the said suit having been filed prior to the filing of the information in this case.

The identical issue posed here was fully considered and disposed of by this Court in the recent case of State v. Galjour, 215 La. 553, 41 So.2d 215, where it was pointed out that concurrent jurisdiction did not exist between the Juvenile Court in a criminal charge against the father for nonsupport of his minor children and the District Court in fixing alimony in a divorce proceeding for the support of the children — the former being criminal in nature, a prosecution for an offense defined and denounced in the Criminal Code, the latter being civil in character, based on the parent's obligation to support his children under Article 227 of the Louisiana Statutes Annotated — Revised Civil Code — it being the sense of the Court that a charge against the father in Juvenile Court of criminal neglect to support his children was not affected by the fact that he had been ordered to pay alimony in the Civil District Court, but that a showing of compliance with the District Court's order to pay alimony may be used as a defense to a charge of wilful nonsupport in Juvenile Court.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is annulled and set aside; the defendant's plea to the jurisdiction is overruled, and the case is remanded to the Juvenile Court, Parish of Jefferson, for further proceedings according to law.