State v. Leckenby
| Decision Date | 06 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 52131,52131 |
| Citation | 151 N.W.2d 567,260 Iowa 973 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Edward LECKENBY, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Larry J. Conmey, Anamosa, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., David A. Elderkin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robert R. Beckmann, County Atty., for appellee.
Edward Leckenby, under commitment to and an inmate of the Men's Reformatory at Anamosa was charged, tried to a jury, convicted and sentenced for the crime of escape. He has appealed.
The information charged that defendant 'having been committed to the Men's Reformatory at Anamosa, Jones County, Iowa, and while so committed, did escape from and leave without due authority Farm No. 1, the farm and place in which he was placed or to which he was directed to go, or in which he was allowed to be by the warden and officers and employees of said prison and reformatory, contrary to the provisions of Chapter 745.1 of the 1962 Code of Iowa.'
The only questions are the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence to convict.
It appears without dispute that defendant was under commitment to the Men's Reformatory. On July 12, 1965, he was assigned as an extra helper to do odd jobs around the slaughterhouse on the Reformatory Farm No. 1. He was told to cut weeds. He was told by the guard in charge of the work detail to not go beyond a designated tree which was approximately 150 feet northwest of the slaughterhouse. He was last seen at about 10:30 a.m. cutting weeds along the slaughterhouse. He was not among the men reporting for dinner at about 11 a.m. He had not been given any authority to leave his job of cutting weeds and when he was finished cutting weeds he was supposed to go to dinner.
When defendant was missing the area was searched. Defendant was not found in the area. Some tracks were seen leading northwest along a river on the State Farm and away from the prison. An alarm for a suspected escape was turned in. Defendant was apprehended at about 4:20 p.m. the same day.
Over objections by defendant's counsel there was testimony as to where defendant was found. The state challenges the sufficiency and timeliness of the defendant's objections. We have considered the evidence and conclude that it was admissible.
The farm superintendent, an employee of the reformatory, patroled the area in a car equipped with a radio. He testified that together with another guard he came upon the defendant 'right in the middle of the highway' 'immediately north of Farm No. 1,' walking east down the middle of 'Old Quarry Road,' the road 'that's immediately north of the State cemetery.'
Substantially the same testimony was given by a guard who was with the superintendent when defendant was found.
Questions and answers set out in the record refer to Stone City Road, Old Quarry Road, a T-intersection and the State cemetery. It is apparent that the participants in the trial court were thoroughly familiar with landmarks and locations. However, it is suggested that for conciseness during trial and for appellate review a better orientation would be helpful.
From the evidence it appears without contradiction that defendant when found had been absent from where he was directed to stay and be for over 5 hours and was walking away from the prison on a road north of the farm.
There was ample evidence from which the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was in violation of the statute.
During oral presentation of this appeal, in response to a question from the bench, it was admitted that the road where defendant was apprehended and the roads referred to were outside the fence enclosing the State Farm. Our understanding of the local geography and the record was thus confirmed.
I. Section 745.1, Code of Iowa, provides:
'If any person committed to the * * * men's * * * reformatory shall * * * escape from or leave without due authority any * * * farm, * * * or any place whatsoever in which he is placed or to which he is directed to go or in which he is allowed to be by the warden or any officer or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. LaMar
-
State v. Gowins
...assigned. Significantly, unauthorized departure is the gravamen of the offense and intent is not a factor. See State v. Leckenby, 260 Iowa 973, 976, 151 N.W.2d 567 (1967). See also Hardwick v. United States, 296 F.2d 24, 26 (9th Cir. 1961). On the other hand, elements essential to jury subm......
-
State v. Reese
...apply to an escape charge under Section 745.1 because intent is not an essential element under that statute. State v. Leckenby, 260 Iowa 973, 976, 151 N.W.2d 567, 569 (Iowa 1967); State v. Wharff, 257 Iowa 871, 875, 134 N.W.2d 922, 925 In our order granting further review, we stated "the is......
-
State v. Marks
...(1961); People v. Haskins, 177 Cal.App.2d 84, 2 Cal.Rptr. 34 (1960); Wiggins v. State, 194 Ind. 118, 141 N.E. 56 (1923); State v. Leckenby, 151 N.W.2d 567 (Iowa 1967); State v. Wharff, 257 Iowa 871, 134 N.W.2d 922 In 30A C.J.S. Escape *s 6(b) (1965), it is stated that the 'intent to evade t......