State v. Putnam, 36854
| Decision Date | 02 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 36854,36854 |
| Citation | 248 Minn. 182,79 N.W.2d 273 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Harold R. PUTNAM, Relator. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
M.S.A. § 613.29 is construed to mean that a prisoner, confined in a penal institution on a charge or conviction of a felony, commits a felony if, while outside the confines of such institution by permission or order of the authorities or away from the presence of the officer or person having him in custody by permission or order of such officer or person, he departs contrary to such permission or order, or fails to return to such institution or to the presence of such officer or person in accordance with such permission or order.
Writ of error discharged.
Harold R. Putnam, Stillwater, for relator.
Miles Lord, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Houston, Sol. Gen., St. Paul, Wm. T. Johnson, County Atty., Stillwater, for respondent.
This case comes to the supreme court on a writ of error issued on January 19, 1956, to review the judgment of conviction of the defendant in the District Court for Washington County, wherein he was convicted of the crime of having, while a prisoner in a penal institution and in lawful custody of an officer, escaped from such institution and custody contrary to M.S.A. § 613.29.
A review of the record discloses that prior to December 25, 1954, the defendant was incarcerated in the state prison at Stillwater, Minnesota, and on that date he admits having left the prison colony without permission. The defendant, after having been recaptured, was charged in an information dated May 10, 1955. The information stated that he had been held and confined in a penal institution, to wit, the prison farm of the Minnesota state prison, on a conviction of forgery, second degree, by virtue of a commitment issued by the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota, dated May 13, 1954, and that he had wilfully, unlawfully, wrongfully, and feloniously departed from said prison farm without the permission of the authorities of said institution, contrary to § 613.29. After having been found guilty by a jury on November 18, 1955, of escape from a penal institution, he was sentenced on that date to the state prison for a period not to exceed seven years.
While it is a little difficult to comprehend the defendant's position in this case from the briefs that he has submitted to this court, his main contention seems to be that the statute under which he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State in Interest of M. S.
...88 Cal.App.2d 734, 199 P.2d 382 (D.Ct.App.1948); Saylor v. Commonwealth, 122 Ky. 776, 93 S.W. 48 (Ct.App.1906); State v. Putnam, 248 Minn. 182, 79 N.W.2d 273 (Sup.Ct.1956); State v. Baker, 355 Mo. 1048, 199 S.W.2d 393 (Sup.Ct.1947); State v. McInerney, 53 R.I. 203, 165 A. 433 (Sup.Ct.1933).......
-
State v. Peters, 6947
...221 Ind. 154, 46 N.E.2d 605; Ex parte Rody, 348 Mo. 1, 152 S.W.2d 657; Bradford v. Glenn, 188 Cal. 350, 205 P. 449; State v. Putnam, 248 Minn. 182, 79 N.W.2d 273. The judgment should be affirmed, and it is so CARMODY and MOISE, JJ., concur. CHAVEZ and NOBLE, JJ., not participating. ...
-
State v. Rasmussen
...jail would constitute an escape from a penal institution. This construction of § 613.29 is supported by our decision in State v. Putnam, 248 Minn. 182, 79 N.W.2d 273, wherein it was held that the term 'penal institution' as used in § 613.29 would encompass a prison farm or farm colony and t......