Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Conn. 384

State v. Doud

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 15, 1829

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1829-06-15

This was an information at common law, filed by the state’s attorney, in the superior court, alleging, That Doud, in pursuance of a judgment of the court, was,on the 27th of December, 1828, lawfully imprisoned in the common gaol of Litchfield county, for a certain assault and battery by him before that time committed; and being so imprisoned, did, on said 27th of December, with force and arms, wilfully, unlawfully and felo-niously escape from and out of said gaol, against…

Cited in Bouvier (1914)’s definition of “Escape”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1829-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1995

6 state decisions

20182918301840185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Peters, J.

¶1By the common law, all immoral acts, which tend to the prejudice of the community, are offences, and punishable by courts of justice. They are denominated crimes and misdemeanours. The former comprehend the more aggravated offences, which are nearly allied and equal in guilt to felony, whereof the superior court formerly assumed jurisdiction ; the latter, inferior offences, whéreof the superior and inferior courts have occcasionally taken cognizance. But now, by statute, the superior court alone has jurisdiction of all offen-ces at common law. Stat. 29. ed. 1784.—172. ed. 1821.—191. Sess. 1828. Knowles v. State, 3 Day 103. 2 Swift’s Syst. 366. 2 Swift’s Dig. 257. State v. Howard, 6 Conn. Rep. 475. Rex v. Higgins, 2 East 5.

¶2By the ancient common law, prison-breaches were felonies, *387if the party were lawfully imprisoned, for any cause whatever, whether civil or criminal, and whether he were actually within the walls of a prison, or only in the stocks, or in the custody of a person who had lawfully arrested him. 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 18. s. 1. And it hath been holden, by all the judges of the King’s Bench, that though a prisoner departs from prison, with the keeper’s licence, it is an offence punishable as well in the prisoner as in the keeper. Hobert and Stroud’s case, Cro. Car. 209. The same doctrine is laid down, by Sir William Blackstmie ; (4 Com. 129.) and it is sanctioned by the late Ch. J. Swift. 2 Sw. Dig. 325. The escape of a person lawfully arrested, by eluding the vigilance of his keepers, before he is put in hold or in prison, is an offenee against public justice ; and the party himself is punishable by fine and imprisonment. For however strong the natural desire of liberty may be, yet every man is bound to submit himself to the restraints of the law. 2 Sw. Dig. 325. 4 Bla. Com. 129.

¶3I am, therefore, of opinion, that the information is sufficient; and as the prisoner is not charged with breaking the prison, or any other actual violence, in effecting his escape, I advise, that he be subjected to the usual common law punishment, fine and imprisonment, one or both, at the discretion of the superior court, not exceeding the punishment from which he escaped.

The other Judges were of the same opinion, Wiiuams, J. intimating some doubts.

¶4Information sufficient.

/7/conn/384 · .json · Public domain