People v. Armstrong
| Decision Date | 01 February 1961 |
| Docket Number | Cr. 7241 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Wayne Leroy ARMSTRONG, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Robert J. Herman, Oxnard, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roy A. Gustafson, Dist. Atty. of Ventura County, Oxnard, Robert L. Shaw, Deputy Dist. Atty., Ventura, for respondent.
Defendant was convicted of a misdemeanor and was sentenced to one year in the Ventura county jail. While serving this sentence, defendant complained of pains which he thought were caused by sitting on cold seats, aggravating a bone disease he had been afflicted with since childhood. The doctor at the jail advised a hospital examination and thereafter defendant, with several other prisoners, was taken from the jail to the county hospital by a deputy sheriff. Upon arrival at the hospital sometime before 9 in the morning, defendant's temperature was 99.2 degrees, a circumstance which, it was testified, might indicate an acute infectious condition.
The deputy sheriff with the prisoners caused them to be seated in a hallway some three to five steps from a treatment room into which the deputy went, leaving the prisoners to await their calls for treatment. Defendant noticing that the deputy was out of sight saw an opportunity to leave, and did so.
He left the hospital by a side door, stole a county truck which he later abandoned to steal another car, and after pursuit was recaptured by peace officers and returned to jail.
After information charging violation of section 4532 of the Penal Code (escape from custody) and also charging two counts of violation of section 10851 of the Vehicle Code (auto theft), the defendant was tried and convicted by a jury on all three counts, and, after application for probation was denied, was sentenced to the Adult Authority with sentences as to the first two counts to run consecutively and the sentence for the third count to run concurrently with the sentences of the first two. From this judgment of conviction the defendant appeals.
Appellant contends that the trial court invaded the province of the jury by instructing as follows: 'The defendant is charged in Count I of the information with the crime of escape, a violation of section 4532 of the Penal Code, which, insofar as it applies in this case, provides that every person convicted of a misdemeanor, who is in the lawful custody of an officer and who escapes, is guilty of a felony.
'An escape is the unlawful departure of a prisoner from the limits of his custody.
'While there must exist in every crime a joint operation of act and intent, the defendant to be guilty of escape need only intend to make the unlawful departure described above.
'A prisoner, removed from the county jail and taken to the hospital for treatment or examination, is in the custody or control of the officer who accompanied him to the hospital as a guard even though the officer may be in an adjoining room and even though the officer may not be able to see the defendant.'
Appellant argues that (1) a question of fact existed as to whether or not the defendant was improperly removed from the county jail and thus not in the 'lawful' custody of the deputy when he departed from the hospital; or (2) a question of fact existed as to whether or not a prisoner not in the immediate and physical presence of the jailer is in actual custody. Neither or these contentions is valid. Granting that lawful custody is an essential prerequisite to the crime of escape, it here appears clearly that Penal Code section 4011.5 affirmatively shows that defendant was in lawful custody at the county hospital. That section provides: 'Whenever it appears to a sheriff or jailer that a prisoner in a county jail or a city jail under his charge is in need of immediate medical or hospital care, and that the health and welfare of the prisoner will be injuriously affected unless he is forthwith removed to a hospital, the sheriff or jailer may authorize the immediate removal of the prisoner under guard to a hospital, * * *' Appellant urges that this section be meticulously construed and states that the record is devoid of any showing of appellant's immediate need for medical or hospital care. This urged construction appears to be overly artful, particularly when it is considered that the section expressly provides '[w]henever it appears to a sheriff or jailer that a prisoner in a county jail or a city jail under his charge is in need of immediate medical or hospital care, * * *.' (Emphasis added.) Furthermore, it must be remembered that the escape provisions of the Penal Code are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State in Interest of M. S.
...F.Supp. 982 (S.D.Cal.1963). 794 (9 Cir. 1958); State v. Adams, 4 Ariz.App. 298, 419 P.2d 739 (Ct.App.1966); People v. Armstrong, 188 Cal.App.2d 745, 10 Cal.Rptr. 618 (D.Ct.App.1961); Best v. Warden, 235 Md. 633, 201 A.2d 490 (Ct.App.1964); Contra, Goodman v. State, 96 Ariz. 139, 393 P.2d 14......
-
People v. Ramirez
...an escape. (Pen.Code, § 4504, subd. (b); People v. Owens (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 403, 404, 46 Cal.Rptr. 91; People v. Armstrong (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 745, 749, 10 Cal.Rptr. 618; People v. Haskins (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 84, 87, 2 Cal.Rptr. Appellant next contends that there was insufficient evi......
-
People v. Bishop
...(1925) 195 Cal. 605, 621, 234 P. 883; In re Ernest M. (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 890, 894, 139 Cal.Rptr. 773; People v. Armstrong (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d 745, 748-749, 10 Cal.Rptr. 618.) Evidence Is there substantial evidence that defendant willfully assisted the attempted escape of her son? In lig......
-
People v. Redmond
...construed according to the fair import of their terms and favoring the punishment of all escaping prisoners (People v. Armstrong, 188 Cal.App.2d 745, 748, 10 Cal.Rptr. 618; People v. Wozniak, 234 Cal.App.2d 162, 163, 44 Cal.Rptr. 215) is neither inconsistent with nor can override the fundam......