| OCR Text |
Show PAGE SIX TNI DAILY MONDAY, AI'III.HT 21. 1972 DKCORD " Office of the Attorney General OPINION NO. August State of Utah 72-O- J3 necessary that the prisoner be confined by physical. force, and the fact that he was unguarded at the time of his escape is immaterial." (Emphasis added.) Id. 1972 U at 879. Mr. Steven V. Love, BY: REQUESTED State may 1. QUESTIONS: 76-50- Board of Pardons from the custody of an officer, and the crime may be committed by a prisoner who escapes while at work outside the Community Correction Centers (Halfway Houses) 2. walls of Is a state prison inmate 7 who As Corpus 76-50- ' CONCLUSIONS Yes. Yes. Yes. 4. Although new lcgislatation does not appear to be needed, it would serve to simplify and clarify this area of the law. The present questions involve the applicability of state statutes to the recently created (Halfway Houses). Those centei r were Community established Correction Centers by the State Division of Coirectionr; as part of the state penal system. The directors of the centers are staff members of the state prison direction of the Warden. All of the staff of the centers are prison employees. and work under the members Three Houses: Halfway different types of convicts are assigned to the State Prison inmates who are transferred from the prison to the centers because of their high trustee ratings; (2) Parolees, convicts who have been out on parole, but have been having problems and who need closer supervision; and (3) Probationers, convicts. on probation, who are (1) experiencing The difficulties. present question arises not because the state has no rtdtutc which can bu interpreted to cover escapes from the Halfway Houses, but because two different statutes could be ent ally relevant. The question, then, is which statute npplifn? The two statutes read as follows: jo! ! "Every prisoner confined in the state prison for a term less than life, and every such prisoner, while in custody of the warden, deputy warden or any keeper or guard in any convict camn,.t or any other place where he may be at work or housed or kept while outside the state prison walls, who escapes or attempts to escape from such prison, convict camp or place of work, or from any keeper or guard, or from any other place where such prisoner may be kept, shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a term of not more than ten years; such second term of imprisonment to commence from information filed under this section shall be filed in the county in which the alleged offense is committed, and the case shall be tried in such county, unless a change of venue is allowed as provided by law." Utah Code Ann. -2 (1953). (Emphasis added.) 76-50- a misdemeanor." Utah Code Ann. 76-50- -3 (1953) . In cases involving the custody and 20A Corpus applicability of escape statutes, jurisdiction are key factors. This is explained in Juris Secundum, Escape 5 as follows: donr.rturc; by a prisoner from mere custody constitutes the crime of escape, and custody, within the meaning of the statute defining the crime has been said to consist of the detention or restraint of person against his wilj. It is not "A Secundum 1 points out, the key factor statute, Utah 76-50- it keeper or guard." This principle is expressed in the doctrine of constructive confinement as explained in Ex Parte Rodv. 152 S.W.2d 657, 348 Mo. 1 (1941). In that case it was held that any convict m custody under commitment for service of a sentence is at least constructively confined in thepenitentiary penitentiary within the statutes prescribing punishment for the escape of persons so confined. Because the Community Correction Centers are run under the direction of the Prison Warden and because the convicts assigned to the centers are serving penitentiary sentences, it appears that the State Prison has legal custody over them, and that they are constructively confined in the State Prison. It would therefore seem that Utah Code Ann. from the Halfway Houses. 76-50- (1953) -2 applies uuo uciercnce must De given to the intent of the legislature.iEue, In so doing, it should be noted that the two statutes were enacted the same 1H93, so neither was meant to supersede the other and year, must bo assumed .it that they were not meant 'to be conflict im, but Utah Code Ann. -3 was intended to cover all unlawful Vsda not eov r d )y ' Utah Code Ann. 76-50- 7G-50- -2. At the time they were enacted, the statutes did not conflict because the only confinement facilities in the state were the State Prison (to which Utah Code Ann. $ clearly applied) and the city and county jails (to which Utah Code Ann. S clearly applied). 76-50- 76-50- -2 -3 Since that time the State Prison system has expanded and the question of the applicability of the old escape statutes to the new penal institution (such as prison farms and reformatories) has been raised many times in Utah, as well as in other states. The state prison escape statutes have generally been interpreted to apply to these new institutions if they arc an integral part of the state prison system. In each of the following cases an escape from the hos been hold to be within the "escape from the state prison" statutes; the prison farm, State v. Peters, 366 P.2d 148, 69 N.M. 302; State v. Baker. 199 S.W.2d 393, 355 Mo. 1048; forestry camp, People v. Hadlev. 199 P.2d 382, 88 Cal.App.2d 734, state reformatory (although sentenced to a state prison) Ex Parte Pierce. 200 P.2d 777, 88 Okl.Cr. 150, Dormatory, Goodman v. State. 393 P.2d 148, 96 Ariz. 139. These cases show a definite trend to expand the application of the escape laws. institution involved In view of this trend to expand the applicability of the state prison escape statutes to cover escapes from related state penal institutions, Utah Code Ann. 76-50- (1953) seems -2 to be the appropriate law to apply to halfway houses as they are clearly a part of the state prison system. The wording of that statute also indicates an intent the part of the legislature to extend applicability beyond the prison walls. It states that it is to apply to escapes from any convict camp, from any other place where a prisoner may be housed, "or from any other place where such orisonpr (meaning a state prisoner) may be kept." (Emphasis added.) This state-meindicates a legislative intent to apply Utah Code Ann. (1953) to all escapes of state prisoners no matter where they may be located, including the Community Correction Centers. is on nt 76-50- "Every prisoner confined in any prison other than the state prison who escapes or attempts to escape therefrom is guilty of under the -2 Code Ann. (1953) is based on the custody requirement since makes it a felony to escape, "while in the custody of the Warden, deputy warden or any to escapes OPINION Juris The Utah escape some 1. 2. 3. : institution in determining the crime of escape is not always the physical location of the prisoner when he escapes, but whether he is in legal custody at the time of the escape. -2 under Utah Code Ann. (1953)7 3. May the existing state law be interpreted in such a manner as to make the law regarding escape convicts assigned to the Community Correction Centers, but not to others? Or, in other words, can the law on 'escape be interpreted to apply to "prison inmates" assigned to the centers, but not to parolees or probationers so assigned? 4. Is the existing law sufficient to cover the escape of prison inmates from the Community Correction Centers but not those of parolees and probationers, or is new legislation needed to accomplish this application of the law? penal -- escapes from a city or county jail to which he has been temporarily transferred, guilty of escape from the "state prison" applicable to a surveillance of guards or under the supervision of other office n, or while being returned to the institution after completion of such work." Id. at 881. Does the existing state law, Utah Code Ann. -2 (1953) regarding escape from the state prison apply to convicts escaping from the be committed by the Vernon B. Romney, Attorney General David S. Young, Chief Assistant Attorney General BY: PREPARED escape "... Likewise, prisoner's departure Executive Secretary, Utah -2 In 1967 the legislature enacted Utah Code Ann. which deals with escapes of Utah prisoners while in the temporary custody of another state. In that regard it 77-6- 5-8 states: "Such escape or attempt to escape shall constitute an offense to the same extent and degree as an escape from the institution in which the prisoner was confined immediately prior to having been released to temporary custody, and shall be punishable in the same manner as an escape or attempt to escape from said institution." I |
