State v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Kansas

State v. Jones

673 P.2d 455, 9 Kan. App. 2d 106, 1983 Kan. App. LEXIS 206

CourtCourt of Appeals of Kansas

DecidedDecember 22, 1983

Docket55,411

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 673 P.2d 455 (State v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Jones, 673 P.2d 455, 9 Kan. App. 2d 106, 1983 Kan. App. LEXIS 206 (kanctapp 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

Foth, C.J.:

Robert D. Jones appeals from his jury conviction of aggravated excape from custody. In late August, 1981, defendant was in the Allen County jail awaiting trial for felony theft. Under court order he was taken by the sheriff to a Coffeyville hospital for treatment by a Coffeyville doctor for a heart condition. Under the doctor’s orders he was transported by ambulance to a hospital in Kansas City, Missouri. About a week later he was released from the Missouri hospital. In May, 1982, he was apprehended in California and returned to Allen County for trial on the original theft charge and on the present escape charge.

We first conclude that defendant’s failure to return constituted an “escape” under the aggravated escape statute, K.S.A. 21-3810. At the time of the offense “escape” was defined in K.S.A. 21-3809 to include “failure to return to custody following temporary leave lawfully granted pursuant to express authorization of law or order of a court.” Defendant’s delivery to the hospital for treatment was “temporary leave lawfully granted pursuant to . . . order of a court.”

Second, the crime was one over which Kansas had jurisdiction. K.S.A. 21-3104(3) says defendant’s “omission to perform a duty imposed by the law of this state,” i.e., to return to custody, resulted in a crime “within the state.” As the Judicial Council note reflects, the statute codifies the common law principle that a person may commit a crime within this state while remaining *107 outside it, and such crime may be an act of omission as well as an act of commission. See In re Fowles, 89 Kan. 430, 131 Pac. 598 (1913).

Finally, if the crime was committed in Kansas it logically had to be committed in some county in the state, where venue would lie under K.S.A. 22-2602. Allen County was the proper county, being the one where the order of “temporary leave” was entered and to which defendant was obligated to return.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Foth, C.J.:

Robert D. Jones appeals from his jury conviction of aggravated excape from custody. In late August, 1981, defendant was in the Allen County jail awaiting trial for felony theft. Under court order he was taken by the sheriff to a Coffeyville hospital for treatment by a Coffeyville doctor for a heart condition. Under the doctor’s orders he was transported by ambulance to a hospital in Kansas City, Missouri. About a week later he was released from the Missouri hospital. In May, 1982, he was apprehended in California and returned to Allen County for trial on the original theft charge and on the present escape charge.

We first conclude that defendant’s failure to return constituted an “escape” under the aggravated escape statute, K.S.A. 21-3810. At the time of the offense “escape” was defined in K.S.A. 21-3809 to include “failure to return to custody following temporary leave lawfully granted pursuant to express authorization of law or order of a court.” Defendant’s delivery to the hospital for treatment was “temporary leave lawfully granted pursuant to . . . order of a court.”

Second, the crime was one over which Kansas had jurisdiction. K.S.A. 21-3104(3) says defendant’s “omission to perform a duty imposed by the law of this state,” i.e., to return to custody, resulted in a crime “within the state.” As the Judicial Council note reflects, the statute codifies the common law principle that a person may commit a crime within this state while remaining *107 outside it, and such crime may be an act of omission as well as an act of commission. See In re Fowles, 89 Kan. 430, 131 Pac. 598 (1913).

Finally, if the crime was committed in Kansas it logically had to be committed in some county in the state, where venue would lie under K.S.A. 22-2602. Allen County was the proper county, being the one where the order of “temporary leave” was entered and to which defendant was obligated to return.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

673 P.2d 455, 9 Kan. App. 2d 106, 1983 Kan. App. LEXIS 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-kanctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack