Simpson v. State

Alpert, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Edward Daniel Simpson, an adult, was found guilty by the Circuit Court for Worcester County sitting as a juvenile court of contributing to the delinquency of two minor girls. He was sentenced to a term of two years imprisonment on each charge, to run concurrent to one another. The sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on two years probation.

On appeal he contends: 1. Trial of the defendant in juvenile court subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment; 2. The juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to try the defendant; and 3. There was no legally sufficient evidence to convict the defendant of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

With respect to the first two contentions, appellant raises these issues for the first time on appeal. Because of our decision on the third contention, we shall not address them. ²⁴² Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor — Sufficiency of the Evidence Trial of the case proceeded on "a stipulation of facts”. From that "stipulation” the trial judge could have concluded that the appellant and his brother had invited two minor girls to their home, offered them beer and caused the beer to be transferred to the minors. Appellant claimed that the minors never consumed alcoholic beverages, nor had them in their possession, charge or control, and that the beer was simply available to anyone at the house who wanted it.

Simpson was charged in a two-count juvenile petition as follows: 1. That on or about the 22nd day of May, 1982, in Worcester County, Maryland, the said Edward Daniel Simpson, of the age of 27 years, did wilfully contribute, encourage and cause the condition of a child to wit: Lisa... of the age of 14 years, which would render the child to be delinquent, in violation of Cts. & Jud. Proc. Vol., Section 3-831 of the Annotated Code of Maryland; contrary to the form of the Act of Assembly in such case made and provided, and against the peace, government and dignity of the State, (emphasis added).

Under Count No. 2, he was similarly charged with respect to Billy Jo, age 15. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 3-831 provided at the time of the offense: Contributing to certain conditions of child.

(a) It is unlawful for an adult wilfully to contribute to, encourage, cause or tend to cause any act, omission, or condition which renders a child delinquent, in need of supervision, or in need of assistance. (b) A person may be convicted under this section even if the child has not been adjudicated delin ²⁴³ quent, in need of supervision, or in need of assistance. However, the court may expunge a delinquent adjudication from the child’s record and enter it as a finding in the adult’s case. (c) An adult convicted under this section is subject to a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than two years, or both.

The court may suspend sentence and place the adult on probation subject to the terms and conditions it deems to be in the best interests of the child and the public. We hold that under the facts of this case appellant could never have been convicted as charged. We explain. Under § 3-831, a two pronged examination must be made by the trial judge.

Initially, it must be determined that an adult willfully contributed to, encouraged, caused or tended to cause an act, omission or