People v. Ah Teung

12 Citing cases

  1. In re Estrada

    63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965)   Cited 4,326 times
    Holding that a defendant "is entitled to the ameliorating benefits of the statutes as amended" if "the amendatory statute lessening punishment becomes effective prior to the date the judgment of conviction becomes final"

    ( In re Jones, 61 Cal.2d 325 [ 38 Cal.Rptr. 509, 392 P.2d 269]; In re Raner, 59 Cal.2d 635 [ 30 Cal.Rptr. 814, 381 P.2d 638]; In re Singh, 234 Cal.App.2d 455 [ 44 Cal.Rptr. 474].) Petitioner argues that since the underlying commitment forming the basis of the confinement was improper, a charge of escape is not sustainable, citing People v. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. 421 [28 P. 577, 15 L.R.A. 190]; People v. Clark, 69 Cal.App. 520 [ 231 P. 590]. Those cases undoubtedly contain language that supports the position of petitioner, but later cases have explained that there are certain fundamental limitations on the application of that rule.

  2. People v. Jones

    163 Cal.App.2d 118 (Cal. Ct. App. 1958)   Cited 9 times

    "There are cases holding that one unlawfully confined who escapes from such confinement, where the confinement is without color of authority, does not violate a statute making it unlawful to `escape' from prison. ( People v. Clark, 69 Cal.App. 520 [ 231 P. 590]; People v. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. 421 [28 P. 577, 15 L.R.A. 190].) These cases, however, deal with situations where a person has been confined either without any authority at all or where the judgment was void on its face.

  3. People v. Ganger

    97 Cal.App.2d 11 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)   Cited 14 times

    den. 317 U.S. 606 [63 S.Ct. 62, 87 L.Ed. 492]); 21 C.J. 826; 30 C.J.S. 1142. Defendant relies upon People v. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. 421 [28 P. 577, 15 L.R.A. 190]; but that case was different in that there was no process by which the prisoner could be imprisoned, while here a commitment was issued by a committing magistrate. Furthermore, the Ah Teung opinion states, page 425, that when one has been confined in a prison by authority or command, it is his duty to submit until delivered by due course of law.

  4. People v. Hinze

    97 Cal.App.2d 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)   Cited 11 times
    In People v. Hinze, 97 Cal.App.2d 1 [ 217 P.2d 35], it was held that there was no error, in a prosecution for escape, in excluding evidence proving that the underlying conviction, judgment and sentence were void because defendant was not informed of his constitutional right to counsel.

    The court thereupon ruled that the proffered testimony would be inadmissible and after a short cross-examination the defense rested. In support of his present contention appellant relies upon such cases as People v. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. 421 [28 P. 577, 15 L.R.A. 190]; People v. Clark, 69 Cal.App. 520 [ 231 P. 590]; People v. Avilez, 86 Cal.App.2d 289 [ 194 P.2d 829]; People v. Chesser, 29 Cal.2d 815 [ 178 P.2d 761]; In re McCoy, 32 Cal.2d 73 [ 194 P.2d 531], and In re Jingles, 27 Cal.2d 496 [ 165 P.2d 12]. We shall treat the offer of proof made as fully adequate to present the points relied upon.

  5. People v. Scherbing

    93 Cal.App.2d 736 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949)   Cited 33 times
    In People v. Scherbing, 93 Cal.App.2d 736 [ 209 P.2d 796], it was held that the youth authority has power under certain conditions and under other statutes to place such a person in a prison, and that the provision of section 1737.1 that it "may" return him to the committing court for that purpose is not exclusive.

    [8] There are cases holding that one unlawfully confined who escapes from such confinement, where the confinement is without color of authority, does not violate a statute making it unlawful to "escape" from prison. ( People v. Clark, 69 Cal.App. 520 [ 231 P. 590]; People v. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. 421 [28 P. 577, 15 L.R.A. 190].) These cases, however, deal with situations where a person has been confined either without any authority at all or where the judgment was void on its face.

  6. People v. Francisco

    228 Cal.App.2d 355 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964)   Cited 13 times
    In People v. Francisco, 228 Cal.App.2d 355, at page 358 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 503], the court said that: "... the elements of the crime of escape under Penal Code section 4532 are: (1) That the accused had been either arrested and booked for, or charged with, or convicted of, a misdemeanor; (2) That he had been either confined in jail, or placed in the lawful custody of an officer; (3) That under conditions (1) and (2) he escaped, or attempted escape, from said jail or custody."

    ( People v. Feldman, 171 Cal.App.2d 15, 23 [ 339 P.2d 888].) In the early case of People v. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. 421 [28 P. 577, 15 L.R.A. 190], it was held that a departure from an unlawful imprisonment or custody is not an escape. The rule of Ah Teung was followed in People v. Clark, 69 Cal.App. 520, 522 [ 231 P. 590].

  7. People v. Darnell

    107 Cal.App.2d 541 (Cal. Ct. App. 1951)   Cited 4 times

    " The leading escape cases are cited by appellant, People v. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. 421 [28 P. 577, 15 L.R.A. 190], and People v. Clark, 69 Cal.App. 520 [ 231 P. 590], but neither is in point. In the Ah Teung case the defendant was prosecuted for aiding in the escape of one Lee Yick from the county jail of Alameda county.

  8. People v. Clark

    69 Cal.App. 520 (Cal. Ct. App. 1924)   Cited 10 times
    In People v. Clark, supra, the defendant who was convicted of an escape had been convicted of burglary, the penalty for which was confinement in the state prison.

    The imprisonment of Clark being illegal, was he guilty of the crime of escape when he peaceably left the place of his confinement? In the case of People v. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. 421-425 [15 L. R. A. 190, 28 P. 577, 578], the court said: "But when the imprisonment is unlawful, and is itself a crime, the reason which makes flight from prison an offense does not exist. In such a case the right to liberty is absolute, and he who regains it is not guilty of the technical offense of escape.

  9. People v. Drevoir

    42 Cal.App. 124 (Cal. Ct. App. 1919)

    Defendant's knowledge that the prisoner was in legal custody may well have been inferred from all the facts and circumstances without direct evidence that he knew the fact. It was held in People v. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. 421, [15 L. R. A. 190, 28 P. 577], that a departure from an unlawful imprisonment or custody is not an escape, within the meaning of the law; and that one who, without violence, assists a person who is confined without authority or process of law to depart from his place of confinement is not guilty of the crime of assisting a prisoner to escape. [4] In the present case the prisoner was shown to have been legally committed to jail and was there being held in legal custody.

  10. People v. Hale

    55 Ill. App. 2d 260 (Ill. App. Ct. 1965)   Cited 10 times
    In People v. Hale (1965), 55 Ill. App.2d 260, 204 N.E.2d 833, the defendant escaped from the Illinois State Farm at Vandalia.

    "Basically, the contention is that a prisoner commits no crime when he escapes unless his commitment is technically lawful in all respects. There are decisions that seem to have so held (e.g., People v. Ah Teung, 92 Cal. 421, 28 P. 577, 15 LRA 190; State v. Pishner, 73 W. Va. 744, 81 S.E. 1046, 52 LRA, NS, 369; State v. Ferguson, 100 Ohio App. 191, 135 N.E.2d 884), and indeed Housh v. People, 75 Ill. 487, looks in that direction, although the case is distinguishable on its facts. But a more realistic point of view has come to prevail.