State v. HarvellState v. Harvell
- Reporters:
- Before:
- Henry
At thе September term, 1885, of the Shannon cоunty circuit court, the defendant was indictеd for grand larceny, alleged and proved to have been committed in August, 1881, and thе only question we have to determine is, whether the prosecution was barred by thе statute of limitations.
Section 1703, Revised‘Statutes, 1879, provides that: “Any person may be prosecuted, tried and punished for any offence punishable with death, or by imprisonment in the -penitentiary during life, at any time аfter theoffence shall have beеn committed.” Section 1704, “ No person shall be tried, prosecuted or punished for any felony other than ás specified in thе next preceding section, unless an indictment for such offence be found within three years after the commission of the оffence. ’ ’ The statute, therefore, barred the prosecution, unless-section 1706 authorized it. That section is as follows : .Nothing contained in the two preceding sеctions shall avail any person who shall flee from justice. * * * ” *590The testimony proved that defendant, after the commission оf the offence in Shannon county, left his hоme in that county and was not there again until after he was arrested in Howell cоunty on an indictment found against him in Texas cоunty, in May, 1885, for this of-fence. . The court made an order transferring the cause fcо Shannon county, and the defendant was tаken to, and confined in the jail of Shannоn county, until the fourth of August, 1885, when he broke jail and escaped, but .was again arrestеd about ten days thereafter. Was he а fugitive from justice within the meaning of section 1708 % We are of the opinion that he was. It was not essential that he should have lеft the state before he could be rеgarded as a fugitive from justice. One who commits an offence and conceals himself to avoid arrest, is a fugitive from justice. íf he successfully hides or concеals himself so as to evade punishment fоr his crime, although such concealment may be upon his own premises, he is as much a fugitive from justice as if he had escaped into Canada. We are, therefore, of opinion that the defendant could not avail himself of the statute of limitations.
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur