Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 08/20/96 OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 95-KA-00864 COA CHARLES FINLEY NIX APPELLANT v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. ANDREW C. BAKER COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: TATE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DAVID CLAY VANDERBURG ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: PAT FLYNN DISTRICT ATTORNEY: ROBERT J. KELLY NATURE OF THE CASE: CRIMINAL: FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT AND NONSUPPORT TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: GUILTY VERDICT ON FAILURE TO PAY COUNT; NOT GUILTY VERDICT ON NONSUPPORT; SENTENCED TO 2 YRS IN PRISON

BEFORE FRAISER, C.J., BARBER, AND SOUTHWICK, JJ. SOUTHWICK, J., FOR THE COURT:

Charles Nix was convicted of failing to pay child support, although found not guilty on a charge of nonsupport. He was sentenced to two years in prison. On appeal, Nix challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm. FACTS Because of his failure to meet support obligations imposed upon him under the terms of his divorce, Nix was found in contempt of court in February 1992. The Tate County Chancery Court issued an order submitted by Nix and his former wife, providing for support of the couple's three daughters in the amount of $300.00 per month. Despite the obligation imposed in the original divorce and the reinforcement of that obligation in the contempt order, Nix continued to fail in meeting his obligations and was indicted for failure to pay child support and nonsupport. In the four years at issue in the indictment, Nix paid only $2,300.00 to support his children. In the interim, he remarried and had two more children with his new wife. At the close of the trial, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of Nix on the charge of nonsupport but found him guilty of failure to pay child support. The trial court sentenced him to two years in prison. DISCUSSION Nix challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence. Our standard for reviewing challenges to convictions based on sufficiency of the evidence is well established. As to each element of the offense, we consider all of the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. We reverse when, with respect to an element of the offense charged, the evidence is such that reasonable and fairminded jurors could only find the accused not guilty. McClain v. State, 625 So. 2d 774, 778 (Miss. 1993). As to whether the verdict is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence, a similar standard is employed. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. The trial court is given discretion to order a new trial in the face of overwhelming evidence contrary to the jury's verdict to prevent an unconscionable injustice. McClain, 625 So. 2d at 781 (citation omitted). As to the charge of failure to pay child support in this case, one of Mississippi's criminal provisions dealing with offenses affecting children states: Any parent who shall . . . wilfully . . . refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his . . . child . . . while said child . . . [is] under the age of eighteen . . . years[,] shall be guilty of a felony and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished . . . . Miss. Code Ann.

Download Charles Finley Nix v. State of Mississippi.pdf

Mississippi Law