State v. Kiggins
| Decision Date | 30 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 11044,11044 |
| Citation | 200 N.W.2d 243,86 S.D. 612 |
| Parties | STATE of South Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gilbert KIGGINS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
William D. Kenyon, Sioux Falls, for defendant and appellant.
Gordon Mydland, Atty. Gen., Frances M. Niemoller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, Sam D. Sechser, Deputy State's Atty., Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant, Gilbert Kiggins, was found guilty of the crime of escaping from a county jail. He now contends the evidence is insufficent to sustain his conviction under SDCL 24--12--2 which defines the crime charged as follows:
The evidence is not in dispute. On March 29, 1971 Kiggins was sentenced to serve a term of three months in the Minnehaha County jail. With the approval of the committing judge Kiggins was granted work-release privileges in order to continue working for Lester's Auto Salvage in the City of Sioux Falls. Under this program defendant was released from jail about 7:00 o'clock each morning with instructions to return at 4:15 in the afternoon. When released from jail he was free from official physical restraint. He was responsible for getting to and from his place of employment and was never accompanied by a guard or jailer. His employer had no responsibility for his actions or conduct.
From March 30, 1971 to April 14, 1971 Kiggins honored his work-release privilege and daily returned to the county jail at the appointed time. On April 14, 1971 he was routinely released from jail in the morning but failed to return in the afternoon. Several months later he was apprehended in Wisconsin and returned to this state.
Defendant contends that when he was released from the Minnehaha County jail to work for a private employer he was not confined in any prison nor was he in custody of any officer or person as a prisoner. Consequently, the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction of the crime of escape as defined in SDCL 24--12--2.
The use of force is not an element of the crime of escape. See Annot., 'Escape or prison breach as affected by the means employed', 96 A.L.R.2d part II, p. 522. As the majority opinion concluded in People v. Richards, 247 Mich. 608, 226 N.W. 651, 'In order to be guilty of an escape, a prisoner need not break doors or walls; he escapes, if he removes himself from the imposed restraint over his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quinn v. Dooley, No. CIV. 02-1032.
...Court's conclusion that Quinn was properly convicted of escape. [¶ 31] The South Dakota Supreme Court's decision in State v. Kiggins, 86 S.D. 612, 200 N.W.2d 243 (1972) is instructive and likewise supports the Court's view that Quinn's escape conviction was lawful under state law. In Kiggin......
-
State v. Paris
...405, 292 A.2d 519, 521 (Pa.Super.Ct.1972) ; State v. Furlong, 110 R.I. 174, 291 A.2d 267, 270 (R.I.1972) ; State v. Kiggins, 86 S.D. 612, 200 N.W.2d 243, 244 (S.D.1972).3 I disagree with the Majority's assertion that the doctrine of judicial estoppel would prevent the State from retrying Pa......
-
U.S. v. Howard
...and state requirements. United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 408, 100 S.Ct. 624, 633, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980); State v. Kiggins, 86 S.D. 612, 200 N.W.2d 243, 244 (S.D.1972). 4. Duress or Necessity Howard asserts error because the trial court refused to give an instruction on duress or neces......
-
State v. Eads
...a 'volunteer'); State v. Furlong, 110 R.I. 174, 291 A.2d 267 (1972) (prisoner departed while in work release program); State v. Kiggins, 86 S.D. 612, 200 N.W.2d 243 (1972) (prisoner on work release left the While the above decisions involve varying escape statutes, all support the view an e......