# Worthington v. State

> Indiana Court of Appeals · September 25, 1980 · 78 Ind. Dec. 376

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9714908

## Case

- **Full name:** John D. WORTHINGTON, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 25, 1980
- **Citations:** 78 Ind. Dec. 376; 409 N.E.2d 1261; 1980 Ind. App. LEXIS 1680
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Garrard
- **Judges:** Hoffman, Staton, Garrard
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9714908

## Opinion text

GARRARD, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur with the majority except for its analysis that IC 35-14-1-4 and IC 35-14-3-1 co-exist and are distinguished by the requirement of wilfulness in the latter.
I would instead find that IC 35-14-1-4 (Acts 1945, Ch. 218, § 4, as amended) is repugnant to IC 35-14-3-1 (Acts 1889, Gh. 201) and as such impliedly repealed the latter as it applies to “any person having the care, custody or control” of a minor.
While such repeals by implication are not favored, they should be found where the later is so repugnant to the earlier as to render them irreconcilable. Lloyd v. State (1979), Ind., 383 N.E.2d 1048 ; Freyermuth v. State ex rel. Burns (1936), 210 Ind. 235 , 2 N.E.2d 399 ; Pennsylvania Co. v. Dunlap (1887), 112 Ind. 93 , 13 N.E. 403 .
As to that part I therefore concur in result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9714908. Public record. Not legal advice.