Com. v. Faulkner
| Decision Date | 30 November 1979 |
| Citation | 396 N.E.2d 1024,8 Mass.App.Ct. 936 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. Gerard FAULKNER. |
| Court | Appeals Court of Massachusetts |
Kenneth I. Goodman, for defendant.
Richard E. Brody, Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.
Before ARMSTRONG, ROSE and KASS, JJ.
RESCRIPT.
The defendant appeals (G.L. c. 278, §§ 33A-33G) from his conviction after a jury-waived trial of violating G.L. c. 268, § 16, as appearing in St.1973, c. 1062, § 1, which provides that "(a) prisoner who escapes . . . from any penal institution . . . shall be punished . . . ." According to the stipulation of facts, on September 27, 1978, the defendant was being held in lieu of bail at the Billerica House of Correction. At approximately 7:45 P.M. on that date the defendant and two other inmates escaped from the jail by cutting through the bars on a cell window and lowering themselves to the ground with a rope. The three then went over the facility's fence and left the grounds. They were later apprehended and returned to the facility.
The sole issue on appeal is whether G.L. c. 268, § 16, applies to a pretrial detainee held in lieu of bail who escapes from a county jail. We conclude that it does. The defendant contends that c. 268, § 16, is not applicable to the facts in this case because a jail is not a "penal institution" within the meaning of that statute and he is not a "prisoner." These arguments are foreclosed by this court's decision in Commonwealth v. Pettijohn, 4 Mass.App. 847-848, 356 N.E.2d 273, 273-74 (1976), in which we stated, "It is clear that an escape from . . . either a county jail or a house of correction is considered an escape from a penal institution within the purview of G.L. c. 268, § 16." See G.L. c. 125, § 1(K ), (D ) and (M ), as appearing in St.1972, c. 777, § 8. In light of this and other decisions of the Massachusetts courts construing G.L. c. 268, § 16, broadly to apply to all escaping prisoners (see Commonwealth v. Hughes, 364 Mass. 426, 428-431, 305 N.E.2d 117 (1973); Commonwealth v. Reed, 364 Mass. 545, 547-548, 306 N.E.2d 816 (1974); Commonwealth v. Sneed, 3 Mass.App. 33, 33-34, 322 N.E.2d 435 (1975)), we are not persuaded by the defendant's arguments urging us to distinguish, for purposes of the escape statute, between prisoners who have been convicted and sentenced to a correctional facility and individuals awaiting trial who are placed in custody in a correctional facility in accordance with law.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Escalanti v. Superior Court In and For County of Maricopa
...has been considered either a penal institution or a correctional facility for purposes of escape statutes. Commonwealth v. Faulkner, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 936, 937, 396 N.E.2d 1024 (1979); State ex rel. Lange v. Tahash, 264 Minn. 300, 306, 119 N.W.2d 15, 19 (1962); Legg v. State, 594 S.W.2d 429, 4......
-
Commonwealth v. Porter
...house of correction where the defendant was serving his weekend sentence qualifies as a “penal institution.” Commonwealth v. Faulkner, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 936, 396 N.E.2d 1024 (1979). See Commonwealth v. Clay, 65 Mass.App.Ct. 215, 216–217, 837 N.E.2d 725 (2005), citing G.L. c. 125, § 1(d ), (k )......
-
Com. v. Moore
...as "[o]ne who is deprived of his liberty. One who is against his will kept in confinement or custody...."In Commonwealth v. Faulkner, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 936, 937, 396 N.E.2d 1024 (1979), we refused to distinguish for purposes of G.L. c. 268, § 16 (the escape statute), between persons who had be......