State v. Chapman
| Decision Date | 06 February 1885 |
| Citation | 5 P. 768,33 Kan. 134 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS v. B. R. CHAPMAN |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Cloud District Court.
INFORMATION against Chapman, for breaking and escaping from the prison of the city of Jamestown, Cloud county. At the April Term, 1884 the court quashed the information and discharged the defendant. The State appeals. The opinion states the facts.
Judgment affirmed.
John W Sheafor, county attorney, for The State.
D. L Brown, and S.D. Huston, for appellee.
HORTON, C. J. Valentine, J., concurring. Johnston, J., not sitting in the case.
An information was filed against the defendant, charging that he had been convicted, before the police judge of the city of Jamestown, in Cloud county, of an offense against the ordinances of said city; that he had been sentenced to pay a fine and the costs of the prosecution; that he had been committed to the city prison of Jamestown until the fine and costs were paid; that thereafter, while being legally confined in said city prison, he unlawfully and feloniously broke the prison and escaped therefrom. On motion of the defendant, the court quashed the information, upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense, and thereupon discharged the defendant. This ruling is complained of.
The statute provides:
(Comp. Laws of 1879, ch. 19a, § 83.)
The defendant was, therefore, at the time of his escape, lawfully confined in the city prison, and the only question is, whether he violated any section of the act regulating crimes and punishments, in breaking the prison and escaping therefrom. Counsel on the part of the state say "that the information charged an offense within the letter and spirit of the statute, as stated in §§ 167 to 187, ch. 31, Comp. Laws of 1881." He does not name the particular section under which the information was drawn. An examination of all the sections referred to does not justify the conclusion. The only sections which we need comment on are 179 and 182.
Section 179 reads:
"If any person, confined in a place of confinement for any term less than for life, or in lawful custody, going to the place of confinement, shall break such prison or custody and escape therefrom, he shall, upon conviction, be punished by confinement and hard labor for a term not exceeding five years, to commence at the expiration of the original term of imprisonment."
And § 182 reads:
"If any person, confined in any county jail, upon conviction for any criminal offense, or held in custody, going to such jail, shall break such prison or custody and escape therefrom, he shall, upon conviction, be punished by confinement and hard labor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wharfield
... ... 707; Brown v. State, 137 Wis. 543, 119 N.W ... 338; People v. Salomon, 212 N.Y. 446, 106 N.E. 111; ... C. S., sec. 3657; People ex rel. Goodyear v ... Friedman, 157 A.D. 437, 142 N.Y.S. 367; People v ... Goldman, 1 Idaho 714; Bradley v. State, 79 Fla ... 651, 84 So. 677; State v. Chapman, 33 Kan. 134, 5 P ... 768; State v. Foster, 106 Kan. 852, 189 P. 953.) ... TAYLOR, ... J. William A. Lee, C. J., Wm. E. Lee, Budge and Givens, JJ., ... [41 ... Idaho 15] TAYLOR, J ... This ... cause comes here on appeal by the state from a ... ...
-
State v. Gilmore
...Jail and the proof is that he escaped from the county farm. There are four cases which support the defendant's position--State v. Chapman, 33 Kan. 134, 5 P. 768; State v. Owens, 268 Mo. 481, 187 S.W. 1189; State v. Betterton, 317 Mo. 307, 295 S.W. 545; and State v. King, 114 Iowa 413, 87 N.......
-
The State v. Betterton
... ... prison" nor can we judicially determine that a ... "city prison" is a "county jail." It is ... therefore our opinion that the matters ... [295 S.W. 547] ... charged in the information do not constitute any offense ... within the statute.' [State v. Chapman, 33 Kan ... See ... also State v. Bartley, 304 Mo. 58; State v ... Reid, 125 Mo. 43; State v. King, 114 Iowa 413; ... Potter v. Commonwealth, 250 S.W. 496; Gibson v ... State, 38 Ga. 571 ... It is ... true, as the learned Attorney-General argues, that ... ...
-
State v. Howland
... ... under which he was prosecuted provide a certain machinery ... which must be followed before he can be put upon his trial in ... the district court. It has always been the rule that the ... defendant is entitled to a strict construction of the ... criminal laws ( State v. Chapman, 33 Kan. 134, 5 P ... 768; State v. Millhaubt, 144 Kan. 574, 587, 61 P.2d ... 1356), and that it is the duty of the courts to enforce a ... rigid and vigilant observance of those laws designed to ... preserve inviolate the right of trial by jury and the purity ... of such trials. State v ... ...