*1 Reports, Michigan [Sept v. RICHARDS. PEOPLE Custody Escape Escape Es- Outside is from Law — 1. —Criminal cape from Prison.' in law is considered prison at Jackson to State Person sentenced in another at work in,prison when he is outside as well to be therefore his actually is as when he prison. escape from custody so at work is escape from Escape from Law — Law —Statutes—Criminal 2. Constitutional of Offense. Prison Gist charged with 1927, 7, providing that one Act No. Pub. Acts wherein adminis- prison shall be tried escape from escape prisоn may irrespective of where trative office valid, and not violation of .constitutional place, is committed, where offense was to be tried escapе gist and not mere of offense under said act since departure. Fellows, J., dissenting. Jackson; A.), Error J. (James Parkinson 119, 1929. No. Calen- April 11, (Docket Submitted 4, dar No. Decided 1929. 34,221.) September escaping' Paul Richards was convicted Affirmed. prison. E. Shelcell, appellant.
John Wilber M. Attorney General, Harry D. Brucker, Boardman, Prosecuting Attorney, Dudley, Owen Assistant Prosеcuting people. for the Attorney, sub- The sole (dissenting). question Fellows, mitted on that portion this record is the validity Act No. Pub. Acts 1927, provides v, Richards. escape charged with аn shall be tried in the prison administrative officesof the where the irrespective place. *2 of where the be to was sentenced the Jackson and Defendant еxpired, before his time had was' there, while and camp on in Clinton work sent to road escaped. two construction; there he Some road recaptured days hе and was tried Jack- later was escape, and son for the convicted. by three earlier decisions
The writer feels bound contention. to sustain the defendant’s of this court my by adoption legal Only of a which to fiction, the circum fallacious, mind is can these decisions be actually it held that' a crime com vented, and be contemрlation of mitted in was in county. In Kim law committed Jackson cutting punish the act was to the ball, By on of timber State lands. the terms of prosecution might brought counties. where the crimе was committed or other prosecuted Ingham county tres Kimball was pass for Alpena county. He on lands located in State discharged corpus brought the was on and habeas imprisonment. action It for false be noted necessary all the records and files to be used on the Lansing, pointed trial it were located at and is herе out that all the located at records files are here question Jackson, so that the same of convenience present opinion by Was in both The Mr. Jus casеs. tice Cooley is a most forceful one. The case by been time resort cited this and other courts of last again. quote excerpts and time some We opinion: judge false “The circuit tried who the action imprisonment In the act. seems to have sustained only plainly act is not hé in error. The this was [Sept. Michigan Reports, tyrannical oppressive degree, in the last legislature, power ample, such as no even if its manifestly passed, it should ever have but is con- plainest important flict with one of the and most provisions of the Constitution. ‘‘ ‘ provides of the Constitution State that The right deemed to by jury of trial shall remain, but shall be in all be waived civil unless de- cases, parties mandеd be in such manner as shall ’ prescribed by right § law. Article 6, 27. The right? Plainly right to remain. What as by jury before; existed to a trial had as it previous jurisprudence become known to the * * * Statе. __ jury implied “Now that in trial it is jury vicinage shall be is familiar law. jurors says Blackstone ‘of or must be the visne *3 neighborhood; interpreted which is to be of the where the act committed.’ 4 350. Cоm. law; This is an old rule of the common P. Hawk. C. so 2, 40; 264; b. c. P. C. and the rule was Hale imperative and if strict an offense was com- partly partly another, in in mitted punishable the offendеr was not b. at all. Hawk. P. C. overnicety L. This was 2, 25; c. Chit. Cr. 177. long the main been dispensed old rule in with, since but the integrity day.
preserved
in its
to this
that the act of 1857
#
“We
[*]
[*]
have not the
(No. 100)
hesitation in
slightest so far as undertakes
declaring
of
thаn that
to authorize
the
trial
some other
a
by
oppressive,
alleged
unwarranted
offense, is
utterly void.”
Constitution,
purport
came
next statute of similar
per-
(2 Comp.
7605)
§
before
1871,
this court
Laws
prosecutions
mitted
for embezzlement
the'
principal place
the em-
where the
ployer
of business of
taken
was located. The embezzlement had
place Wayne,
but under the terms of
People
v. Richards.
Following
prosecution
in Washtenaw.
proceeding
that the
was
it was held
Case,
the Swart
guaranty
nullity
on this
“the constitutional
a
subject
plain
controverted.” Hill v.
to be
is too
Again
legislature
Taylor,
at-
549.
50 Mich.
jurisdiction upon
original
tempted
counties
to confer
which the crime was committed
than those in
other
stealing
by
prosecutions
providing
for
from a
county through
any
might
brought in
railroad car
11633).
passed (3 Comp.
§
1897,
Laws
which the car
legislation
again
unconsti-
this court held such
And
(119
Am.
other Taylor, settle the rule and Hill v. ’’ Michigan. negative unequivocally these threе decisions While juris original power legislature to confer upon where the other than those diction counties recognition court, this committed, crime importance right to and the jury, impartial the valid a fair and has sustained ity permitting a case to the transfer statute *4 may impartial a fair and another where tri.al com the crime was where not be had People People v. 27; 93 Mich. Peterson, mitted. v. Judge Re v. 593; 103 Mich. Glinnnan Fuhrmann, 237 Rich, v. 674; Court, 173 Mich. corder’s recognized has likewise 481. This court Mich. validity jurisdiction legislation extended which (People adjoining line strip over a small [Sept. Michigan Reports. necessary 104), quite v. important Donaldson, early days not section lines had definitely legislation and to established, been jurisdiction (Andrews extends over the Great Lakes 157), are Ellsworth, which, course, Mich. organized without such not legislation into counties where go Lakes un-
crime on the Great would punished. these But none the decisions on subjects quoted language has the Mr. Justice deciding, necessarily Cooley used in used deciding, supra, questioned. been Kimball, quite likely provision It is before us would con- seriously might venience not incon- State; defendants; venience I do not know. But I know do opening wedge it will be an thrust intо the funda- building. mental into the foundation of De- law, priving our meanest citizens of their constitutional only rights against is not an offense them but also against an offense our institutions.
I think this conviction should be set aside without a new trial. (for affirmance). I am constrained to Wiest,
disagree with the conclusion reached Mr. Justice Fellows. juris- of an accused to be tried in the alleged
diction where it is he committed crime is ancient and valuable and should be maintained. prisoner, But, in case of of a in confinement sentencе, under to a State is the mere the act fix or venue in its itself, imprisonment, relation to the be declared law to guilty fix escape, the venue ? In order to be of an prisоner escapes need not break doors or walls; he imposed if he removes himself from the restraint person over his and volition. In *5 613 v. Bichards. prisoner in fact under Statе, awas defendant confinement, in the State in law considered custody departed from prison. that he true It is escape imprison- county, from his but prison, escape, and not and such ment in the State departure, gist his was the the mere say be heard to that he he cannot offense, and right by deprived of a constitutional been county. Jаckson (205 Judge, 188 Glenn, Cal.
In Bradford prisoner, employed 449), work, in road es- a Pac. caped be and the court held he could in one pro- under a statute which tried another prison charge a from vided that a any county It was there said: tried State. opinion person serving “We are a a imprisonment prison sentence of contеmplation in a is, State prisoner law, therein, as well when at work outside under the surveillance prison guards as when walls, confined within its so escapes escapes if he within the outside he meaning of section 787.” People Vanderburg, see
To like effect Cal. 621). App. (227 Pac.
I think the statute and the conviction should valid, be affirmed. J., Pot-
North, Fead, Clark, McDonald, C. JJ., ter, Sharpe, Wiest, concurred with