Opinion ID: 1806469
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was Dodge county the proper venue?

Text: Defendant's first argument is that his escape occurred in Dane county and he should have been tried there because sec. 956.01 (1), Stats., provides that criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed. Sec. 956.01 (1), Stats., makes the above provision, but ends with the phrase except as otherwise provided in this section. The place of trial for offenses committed while incarcerated is otherwise provided for in sec. 956.01 (9), Stats., which provides that the place of trial for crimes committed within the precincts of a Wisconsin prison shall be governed by sec. 53.02.  Sec. 53.02 (4), Stats., set forth above, is not a model of clarity, but its net effect is to provide that every activity conducted by the Wisconsin prison system is deemed to be carried on within the precincts of the prison, regardless of where it is actually and physically carried on. Then sec. 53.02 (4), Stats., further provides that all of these precincts, regardless of where they are actually located, are deemed to be located in Dodge county. Then, still further sec. 53.02 (4) provides that the courts of Dodge county shall have jurisdiction over all crimes committed within the precincts of the Wisconsin prison system. The circuity found in sec. 53.02 (4), Stats., is exceeded only by that found in defendant's contention that he was not within the precincts of the prison when he escaped from University Hospitals in Dane county. Defendant bases this argument on sec. 36.31, which states that the State of Wisconsin General Hospital shall be under the control and supervision of the board of regents of the university. He argues that his medical treatment was not an activity conducted under the jurisdiction of and by the Wisconsin correctional institution. (Sec. 53.02.) Thus defendant maintains that he was under the regents' control, not that of the prison when he escaped. It is not necessary to resolve the synthetic conflict which the defendant has created between sec. 53.02, Stats., and sec. 36.31. It is sufficient to note that sec. 946.42 (1) makes it a crime to escape from custody, and sec. 946.42 (5) (b) defines custody as follows: (b) `Custody' includes without limitation actual custody of an institution or of a peace officer or institution guard and constructive custody of prisoners temporarily outside the institution whether for the purpose of work or medical care or otherwise.... (Emphasis supplied.)  Under the above statutes it is clear that defendant was still in custody of the Wisconsin correctional institution when he escaped. Under sec. 53.02 (4), Stats., his escape is deemed to have occurred in Dodge county. From the facts of the case a reasonable inference can be drawn that the defendant used the trip to University Hospitals as a ruse to escape from the correctional institution. We conclude that Dodge county was the proper venue for defendant's trial.