Court Opinion

ID: 9633230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:38:54.71857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:31.072432
License: Public Domain

Fromme, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the first five paragraphs of the syllabus and the corresponding parts of the opinion. The judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial because the trial judge took over the role of the prosecuting attorney.
However, I respectfully dissent from paragraphs six and seven of the syllabus and the corresponding parts of the opinion. This latter portion of the opinion constitutes judicial legislation in the guise of statutory construction. The opinion erases the crime of “escape from custody” from the Kansas Criminal Code when the escape occurs prior to the filing of a formal written charge even though the accused has been taken into lawful custody on a charge. The opinion further authorizes the use of the wholly distinct and separate crime, “obstructing official duty” (K. S. A. 1972 Supp. 21-3808) as a substitute for the crime just erased by the court. In any event defendant is acquitted on all charges relating to escape *52from custody and cannot be tried for “obstructing official duty”. Advisory opinions such as this should not be given by the court. The court should not stray from the Statement of Points on appeal presented and briefed by the parties.
The crime of “escape from custody” has generally been considered a distinct crime from that of “obstructing official duty”. The “obstructing official duty” statute (21-3808) by its terms requires the obstructing, resisting or opposing of an officer in the discharge of an official duty. I do not read the Merrifield case cited by the majority to hold otherwise. As pointed out in 58 Am. Jur. 2d, Obstructing Justice, § 12, p. 863:
“Broadly speaking, to ‘obstruct’ is to interpose obstacles or impediments, to hinder, impede, or in any manner intrude or prevent, and this term does not necessarily imply the employment of direct force or the exercise of direct means. It includes any passive, indirect circuitous impediments to the service or execution of process, such as hindering or preventing an officer by not opening a door or removing an obstacle, or by concealing or removing property. If the means used are sufficient to prevent the officer from making an arrest, through fear, terror, or otherwise because of the opposition or resistance, the offense is complete. . . .”
Thus it is readily apparent some sort of force, resistance or threat is essential to complete the crime of obstructing official duty, but this is not necessarily so in the crime of escape. For instance, take the case of a person who is arrested for a serious felony late on a Sunday evening. He is booked and placed in jail pending written charges to be filed the next morning. After the jailer has left the accused saws through the bars which confine him and makes his escape unnoticed. I do not believe he can properly be charged with “obstructing official duty” and under the opinion of the court he cannot be found guilty of “escape from custody”. The opinion of the court permits and encourages an accused to engage in a game of “hare and hounds” at the expense of the police officers at any time prior to the filing of a written charge.
The “escape from custody” crimes are defined and proscribed in the Kansas Criminal Code (K. S. A. 1972 Supp. 21-3809 and 21-3810) which contains its own separate definitions section. See 21-3110 which provides: “The following definitions shall apply when the words and phrases defined are used in this code, except when a particular context clearly requires a different meaning.” (Emphasis supplied.) This statement is then followed by twenty-five definitions, none of them refer to the word “charge”. The *53Kansas Criminal Code is complete with definitions in Chapter 21 of the statutes.
The majority opinion uses an entirely different code, the Kansas Code of Criminal Procedure, to locate a suitable definition for the word “charge”. This latter code is found in Chapter 22 of the statutes. The definition section of that code is 22-2202. In a preface to these definitions it is said: “In interpreting this code, such words and phrases as are defined in this article shall be given the meanings indicated by their definitions, unless a particular context clearly requires a different meaning.” (K. S. A. 1972 Supp. 22-2201 [1], Emphasis supplied.) Then follows 22-2201 (2) which provides:
“Words or phrases not defined in this code but which are defined in the Kansas criminal code shall have the meanings given therein except when a particular context clearly requires different meanings.”
I believe it is significant that no similar provision was placed in the Kansas Criminal Code (Chapter 21) in connection with its definition section. The absence of such a reference militates against incorporating the definitions in the procedural code into the criminal code.
There is yet another reason why the Kansas Criminal Code (Chapter 21) does not and could not contain a provision incorporating the definitions in the procedural code by reference.
Although these two separate codes became effective July 1, 1970, the Kansas Criminal Code (Chapter 21) was passed in the 1969 session of the legislature (ch. 180, L. 1969) and the Kansas Code of Criminal Procedure (Chapter 22) was passed in the 1970 session of the Legislature (ch. 129, L. 1970). The code passed in 1969 could not very well incorporate by reference definitions to be adopted at some time in the future.
In summary the definitions of the crimes of escape from custody contained in 21-3809 and 21-3810 do not mention a written charge and I would not require that the charge be written. The judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial on both the charge of aggravated battery and escape from custody.
Kaul, J., joins in the foregoing concurrence and dissent.