Lewis v. People, 21489
| Decision Date | 21 March 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 21489,21489 |
| Citation | 412 P.2d 232,159 Colo. 400 |
| Parties | Joseph LEWIS, Plaintiff in Error, v. The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
William R. Stinemeyer, Canon City, for plaintiff in error.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., James W. Creamer, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error was charged with and convicted of the crime of felonious escape pursuant to the statutes of this state which prohibit such conduct. He will be designated in this opinion either as defendant or Lewis. Lewis seeks to reverse the judgment of conviction.
The record discloses that on August 18, 1963, the defendant passed by the guard at the west gate of the penitentiary, purportedly on his way to the residence of Captain Yeo, Senior Captain at the penitentiary, where he had been assigned as yardman. Lewis did not return that night; he was picked up several days later at some distance from the penitentiary.
Lewis produced Captain Yeo as a witness in his behalf. Captain Yeo testified that he had given Lewis permission to go fishing three or four weeks earlier and that the yardmen assigned to other houses also had this permission. The defendant testified that he thought that his permission was still valid and obtained every time he finished his assigned work. Lewis contended that at the time of his arrest he was fishing in accordance with the purported permission; and, in fact, when he was found he was about 50 feet from the river and did have fishing equipment with him consisting of clothes, tack box and reel. Lewis also testified that when he left he told the guard he was going fishing.
We are not here concerned with sufficiency of evidence to convict Lewis, but are directed by the assignments of error to consider whether the court properly instructed the jury in defining the crime of 'escape.' In truth, the three assignments of error urged by Lewis are in reality only one, namely, that the trial court improperly defined the crime of 'escape.'
The instructions which the court gave advised the jury that anyone who escapes while in lawful custody is guilty of the crime of escape; and that escape means the actual and voluntary departure from lawful custody. Under such a definition, one who voluntarily leaves the penitentiary temporarily under an honest and sincere belief that he had permission to so leave violates the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Marks
...cases which hold that at common law an escape by a prisoner required an 'intent to evade the due course of justice.' Lewis v. People, 159 Colo. 400, 412 P.2d 232 (1966); Gallegos v. People, 159 Colo. 379, 411 P.2d 956 (1966). However, numerous authorities have held that no specific intent i......
-
State v. Garcia
...Escape, at common law, is defined as a departure from lawful custody with the intent to evade the due course of justice; Lewis v. People, Colo., 412 P.2d 232 (1966), and the very foundation of the crime of escape is the lawful confinement of the prisoner. Houpt v. State, 100 Ark. 409, 140 S......
-
Ruark v. People
...correctly denied the motion for acquittal. II. Ruark contends that Gallegos v. People, 159 Colo. 379, 411 P.2d 956, and Lewis v. People, 159 Colo. 400, 412 P.2d 232, dictate reversal of this case because the trial court here, as in those cases, failed to instruct the jury that the crime of ......