Boyce v. State
| Decision Date | 17 February 1969 |
| Citation | 250 A.2d 200 |
| Parties | Ronald W. BOYCE v. STATE of Maine et al. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Ronald L. Kellam, Portland, for plaintiff.
John W. Benoit, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for defendants.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, MARDEN and WEATHERBEE, JJ.
On appeal.
In September of 1967 petitioner, who had been committed to the Reformatory for Men (which later became the Men's Correctional Center) pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with escape and was sentenced to serve a term of one and onehalf to three years in the Maine State Prison. Three months later he brought this petition for the statutory writ of post-conviction habeas corpus (14 M.R.S.A., Section 5502) alleging that the indictment to which he had pleaded guilty was insufficient at law. The Single Justice below ordered the petition dismissed. We find no error.
The indictment reads:
'On the nineteenth day of August, 1967, in the Town of Windham, County of Cumberland, and State of Maine, the defendant, Ronald W. Boyce, was undergoing lawful imprisonment in the State Reformatory for Men, at said Windham, in pursuance of the sentence of the Honorable Alton A. Lessard, Justice of the Superior Court for the County of Penobscot, and State of Maine, on the Thirteenth day of September, A.D. 1966, for the offense of Conspiracy; which offense was within the jurisdiction of said court and upon the nineteenth day of August, A.D. 1967, the said Ronald W. Boyce did while in a supervised work crew at the Pineland Hospital and Training Center in said County, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, from and out of said work crew and out of said Reformatory for Men, escape and go at large.'
Petitioner argues that the indictment to which he pleaded guilty was insufficient because it did not allege that the petitioner was undergoing lawful imprisonment at the Men's Correctional Center, that it alleges his employment on a work crew at the Pineland Hospital and Training Center which he says was not lawful confinement and that it fails to make clear whether it charges petitioner with violating 34 M.R.S.A., Section 5, 34 M.R.S.A., Section 807 or 17 M.R.S.A., Section 1405, all of which have reference to escapes from the Center.
'The lawfulness of the detention is the very gist of the crime of criminal escape, and the commitment by lawful authority is the very essence of the lawfulness of the detention.' Smith, Ptr. v. State, 145 Me. 313, 322, 75 A.2d 538, 543 (1950).
The language of the indictment to which petitioner pleaded guilty is almost identical to that which we examined in Hamner v. State, Me., 223 A.2d 532 (1966) and which we found to meet all the requirements of good pleading and of constitutional exactness. It adequately charges a lawful imprisonment at the Men's Correctional Center. However, its reference to the escape having taken place while petitioner was on a work crew away from the grounds of the institution raises an issue which we have not before considered. 34 M.R.S.A., Section 5, which was in effect at the time of petitioner's escape, permits the Department of Mental Health and Correction to authorize the employment of inmates of the Center away from the grounds of the Center in the construction and improvement of highways and 'other public works', in fighting fires, in assisting officials in case of civilian disaster, and in the improvement of property of charitable institutions, under proper conditions of treatment and safekeeping. The Section then concludes with these words:
'Any * * * inmate who escapes from any assignments described in this section, or any other assignment * * * off the grounds of the Men's Correctional Center shall be guilty of escape under this Title or Title 17, section 1405.'
Does the failure of the indictment to allege that petitioner's presence in the 'supervised work crew' from which petitioner escaped was an 'assignment' or that the project at Pineland Hospital and Training Center was an 'authorized' public work constitute fatal omissions? We think not. Section 5 does not create a new offense of escape from the Center while on assignment to an anthorized work detail. It empowers the Department to employ inmates on appropriate projects for their benefit and that of the public and it recognizes the common law principle that a prisoner who escapes while employed outside the walls of the institution of confinement is considered to have escaped from the institution. It is not essential that his presence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lebo, 66-70
...and custody of the warden. Thus, in fact and law, his escape from the prison farm constituted an escape from the prison. Boyce v. State (Maine 1969), 250 A.2d 200, 202; State v. Mead, 130 Conn. 106, 32 A.2d 273, The defendant makes the further argument that the information alleges a violati......
-
State v. Furlong
...1971); McCullough v. United States, 369 F.2d 548 (8th Cir. 1966); Cassady v. State, 247 Ark. 690, 447 S.W.2d 144 (1969); Boyce v. State, 250 A.2d 200, 202 (Me.1969); State v. Baker, 355 Mo. 1048, 199 S.W.2d 393 (1947); Perkins, Criminal Law 503 (2d ed. 1969); 3 Wharton's Criminal Law and Pr......
-
State v. Flemming
...escape from the prison since the statute specifically so provided. The instant case is also distinguishable from the case of Boyce v. State, 1969, Me., 250 A.2d 200, and similar cases, where the statute, 34 M.R.S.A., § 5, expressly provided "(a)ny prisoner or inmate who escapes from any ass......
-
State v. Holbrook
...710 (hereinafter Section 710), is derived, initially, from a doctrine already established in this State by the decisions of Boyce v. State, Me., 250 A.2d 200 (1969) and State v. Campbell, Me., 314 A.2d 398 (January 28, 1974). In these cases Section 710 is held to prescribe three essential e......