252 F. 566 (4th Cir. 1918), 1600, Orth v. United States
| Docket Nº | 1600. |
| Citation | 252 F. 566 |
| Party Name | ORTH v. UNITED STATES. |
| Case Date | July 06, 1918 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit |
Page 566
Page 567
Paul M. Macmillan, of Charleston, S.C., for plaintiff in error.
J. Waties Waring, Asst. U.S. Atty., of Charleston, S.C. (Francis H. Weston, U.S. Atty., of Columbia, S.C., on the brief), for the United States.
Before PRITCHARD, KNAPP, and WOODS, Circuit Judges.
WOODS, Circuit Judge.
The defendant was convicted and sentenced under an indictment charging violation of the following statute:
'Whoever shall rescue or attempt to rescue, from the custody of any officer or person lawfully assisting him, any person arrested upon a warrant or other process issued under the provisions of any law of the United States, or shall, directly or indirectly, aid, abet, or assist any person so arrested to escape from the custody of such officer or other person, or shall harbor or conceal any person for whose arrest a warrant or process has been so issued, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest, after notice or knowledge of the fact that a warrant or process has been issued for the apprehension of such person,
Page 568
shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. ' Criminal Code, Sec. 141 (Act March 4, 1909, c. 321) Sec. 141, 35 Stat. 1114 (Comp. St. 1916, Sec. 10311).
The first count charged that the defendant aided, abetted, and assisted Robert Fay, a person under arrest and convicted under the laws of the United States, and in the custody of the warden of the United States penitentiary at Atlanta, to escape from that custody. The second count charges that the defendant harbored and concealed the convict, Robert Fay, so as to prevent his discovery and arrest. The defendant was convicted under both counts, and sentenced to imprisonment for twelve months and a fine of $1,000 and the costs of the prosecution.
Fay escaped from the Atlanta penitentiary on August 29, 1916. On September 23, 1916, he appeared in Charleston, S.C., where the defendant lived, and as the evidence tended to show was by the defendant aided and protected, and assisted to leave Charleston. Under this state of the proof, the defendant's counsel requested the District Judge to direct a verdict of acquittal on the first count of the indictment. The motion was refused, and the defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
869 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir. 1989), 87-1039, United States v. Vowiell
...active pursuit, the escape is complete. After that aid to the fugitive is no longer aiding his escape." Orth v. United States, 252 F. 566, 568 (4th Cir.1918); 4 see Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure Sec. 1370 (1957) (assistance after completion of escape makes one guilty as an acces......
-
27 F.3d 142 (5th Cir. 1994), 93-1584, United States v. Smithers
...or both. [18] U.S.C. Sec. 246 (1940 ed.). [10] United States v. Shapiro, 113 F.2d 891, 893 (2d Cir.1940). [11] Orth v. United States, 252 F. 566, 568 (4th Cir.1918). See also Shapiro, 113 F.2d at 893. See generally Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law Sec. 6.9(a) (2d ed.......
-
59 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995), 95-1207, United States v. DeStefano
..."flight beyond immediate active pursuit" articulation into disrepute. We examine each of these cases. In Orth v. United States, 252 F. 566 (4th Cir.1918), a prisoner fled from a Georgia penitentiary. Four weeks later, he appeared on the defendant's doorstep in South Carolina, seek......
-
909 P.2d 1180 (Nev. 1996), 25821, State v. Stull
...pursuit, the escape is complete. After that aid to the fugitive is no longer aiding his escape.' " Id. (quoting Orth v. United States, 252 F. 566, 568 (4th Cir.1918)). Here, Lynette bailed Stull out around 9:48 a.m. As noted, he had not reached temporary safety--he was confined in jail......
-
869 F.2d 1264 (9th Cir. 1989), 87-1039, United States v. Vowiell
...active pursuit, the escape is complete. After that aid to the fugitive is no longer aiding his escape." Orth v. United States, 252 F. 566, 568 (4th Cir.1918); 4 see Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure Sec. 1370 (1957) (assistance after completion of escape makes one guilty as an acces......
-
27 F.3d 142 (5th Cir. 1994), 93-1584, United States v. Smithers
...or both. [18] U.S.C. Sec. 246 (1940 ed.). [10] United States v. Shapiro, 113 F.2d 891, 893 (2d Cir.1940). [11] Orth v. United States, 252 F. 566, 568 (4th Cir.1918). See also Shapiro, 113 F.2d at 893. See generally Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law Sec. 6.9(a) (2d ed.......
-
59 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1995), 95-1207, United States v. DeStefano
..."flight beyond immediate active pursuit" articulation into disrepute. We examine each of these cases. In Orth v. United States, 252 F. 566 (4th Cir.1918), a prisoner fled from a Georgia penitentiary. Four weeks later, he appeared on the defendant's doorstep in South Carolina, seek......
-
909 P.2d 1180 (Nev. 1996), 25821, State v. Stull
...pursuit, the escape is complete. After that aid to the fugitive is no longer aiding his escape.' " Id. (quoting Orth v. United States, 252 F. 566, 568 (4th Cir.1918)). Here, Lynette bailed Stull out around 9:48 a.m. As noted, he had not reached temporary safety--he was confined in jail......