TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bradford v. Glenn

HUGH B. BRADFORD, Etc., Petitioner, v. MALCOLM C. GLENN, as Judge of the Superior Court, Respondent

Bradford v. Glenn, 205 P. 449 (Cal. 1922)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 7, 1922
Docket
No. S. F. No. 10176.
Judges
Shaw
Citations
205 P. 449188 Cal. 3501922 Cal. LEXIS 433
Disposition
Writ granted.
Headnotes
[1] Criminal Law—Prisons—Escapes.—A person serving a sentence of imprisonment in a state prison is, in contemplation of law, a prisoner therein, as well when at work outside under the surveillance of prison guards as when confined within its walls, so that if he escapes when outside he escapes from a prison, within the meaning of section 787 of the Penal Code.
Summary
APPLICATION for a Writ of Mandate requiring respondent to proceed to trial of petitioner. Malcolm C. Glenn, Judge. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Shaw

At the close of the argument Shaw, C. J., delivered the opinion of the court as follows:

The defendant, Cecil Murray, was in a state prison and was taken out to work, under guard and under authority of the law, on a highway in Trinity County, and there he escaped. He was charged with that escape under the section which makes it an offense. The information was filed in the superior court of Sacramento County, and that court refused to proceed with the case. Section 787 of the Penal Code provides that a charge of escaping from a prison may be tried in any county in the state.

Section 106 of the Penal Code provides that “Every prisoner committed to a state prison for a term less than for life, who escapes or attempts to escape while being conveyed to or from or while confined in such prison or while at work outside such prison under the surveillance of prison guards, is guilty of a felony.”

[1]

We are of the opinion that a person serving a sentence of imprisonment in a state prison is, in contemplation of law, a prisoner therein, as well when at work outside under the surveillance of prison guards as when confined within its walls, so that if he escapes when outside he escapes from a prison, within the meaning of section 787.

Let the writ of mandate issue as prayed for.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 14 cases

View all citing references →
1924: 31925: 11926: 11929: 11932: 11934: 11953: 11961: 11964: 11975: 11976: 12001: 119242026peak 1924 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Richardson32 P.2d 433 (Cal. Ct. App. 1934)
  2. Shawn Garfield Price v. Superior Court25 P.3d 618 (Cal. 2001)
  3. State v. Peters366 P.2d 148 (N.M. 1961)
  4. Stewart v. State340 A.2d 290 (Md. 1975)
  5. California Highway Commission v. Industrial Accident Commissionn251 P. 808 (Cal. 1926)
  6. People v. Superior Court258 P.2d 1087 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)

Most recent

  1. Shawn Garfield Price v. Superior Court25 P.3d 618 (Cal. 2001)
  2. Patricia J. v. Rio Linda Union School District61 Cal. App. 3d 278 (1976)
  3. Stewart v. State340 A.2d 290 (Md. 1975)
  4. State v. Gilmore388 P.2d 451 (Or. 1964)
  5. State v. Peters366 P.2d 148 (N.M. 1961)
  6. People v. Superior Court258 P.2d 1087 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list