Court Opinion

ID: 9724951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:22:32.21593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:08.210501
License: Public Domain

SCOTT, J.
I dissent.
This petition for writ of prohibition is made pursuant to Penal Code section 999a, which comes after denial of Yost’s motion to dismiss the information pursuant to Penal Code section 995.
Our function is not to determine whether Yost is guilty or not guilty, but to determine whether there was probable cause shown which would lead an ordinary, cautious or prudent man to believe and conscientiously *296entertain a strong suspicion of the guilt of the accused. The prosecution should not be prohibited if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it. (Rideout v. Superior Court (1967) 67 Cal.2d 471 [62 Cal.Rptr. 581. 432 P.2d 197].)
Escape is the unlawful departure of a prisoner from the limits of his custody. (People v. Quijada (1921) 53 Cal.App. 39 [199 P. 854].) Penal Code section 4532. subdivision (a), provides an additional definition of escape, that is. “the willful failure of a prisoner ... to return to the place of confinement” at the appointed time. I do not read this latter definition as the exclusive manner in which an inmate, while on work furlough, can escape from custody, particularly in light of the policy of the law to liberally construe escape statutes according to the fair import of their terms. (People v. Redmond (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 852 [55 Cal.Rptr. 195]; In re Haines (1925) 195 Cal. 605 [234 P. 883].)
Whether the petitioner was attempting to escape, or was merely violating his work furlough conditions is a question to be decided by a trier of fact. The majority seems to recognize that there can be an attempt to escape before there is an actual failure to return to confinement. Certainly here where the petitioner was discovered many miles from where he was supposed to be. in an automobile, is sufficient evidence to hold him for trial for violation of Penal Code section 4532. subdivision (a).
It appears that this court is improperly substituting its judgment as to the weight of the evidence for that of the magistrate, and is not drawing every legitimate inference that may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the charge. (Rideout v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 474.)
I would deny the writ.