MOLINARO
v.
NEW JERSEY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court dismissed Molinaro's appeal of his conviction for abortion and conspiracy to commit abortion after learning that he had jumped bail and become a fugitive from justice. The Court held that a convicted defendant who escapes custody while seeking appellate review is not entitled to have the Court adjudicate the merits of his case, and the Court may dismiss such appeals without waiting until the end of the term.
[1] A court may decline to adjudicate a criminal appeal when the convicted defendant, who has sought review, has escaped from custody and is a fugitive from justice.
[2] A defendant's escape from custody disentitles them to call upon the resources of the court for the determination of their claims.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
This case comes to the Court on appeal from the New Jersey state courts, which have affirmed appellant Moli-naro’s conviction for abortion and conspiracy to commit abortion. We are informed by both appellant’s counsel and counsel for the State that Molinaro, who was free on bail, has failed to surrender himself to state authorities. His bail has been revoked, and the State considers him a fugitive from justice. Under these circumstances we decline to adjudicate his case.
The Court has faced such a situation before, in Smith v. United States, 94 U. S. 97 (1876), and Bonahan v. Nebraska, 125 U. S. 692 (1887). In each of those cases, which were before the Court on writs of error, the Court ordered the case removed from the docket upon receiving information that the plaintiff in error had escaped from custody. In Smith, the case was dismissed at the beginning of the following Term. See 18 Geo. Wash.
L. Rev. 427, 430 (1950).
In Bonahan, the case was stricken from the docket on the last day of the Term in which it arose. See also National Union v. Arnold, 348 U. S. 37, 43 (1954); Eisler v. United States, 338 U. S. 189 and 883 (1949); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U. S. 138 (1897).
No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case after the convicted defendant who has sought review escapes from the restraints placed upon him pursuant to the conviction. While such an escape does not strip the case of its character as an adjudicable case or controversy, we believe it disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims. In the absence of specific provision to the contrary in the statute under which Molinaro appeals, 28 U.
S. C. § 1257 (2), we conclude, in light of the Smith and Bonahan decisions, that the Court has the authority to dismiss the appeal on this ground. The dismissal need not await the end of the Term or the expiration of a fixed period of time, but should take place at this time.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Douglas concurs in the result.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (111 total)
-
State v. Gurican, 576 So. 2d 709 (Fla. 1991)…nd this Court have long held that courts may dismiss the appeals of criminal defendants who flee the jurisdiction while their appeals are pending. E.g., Estelle v. Dorrough, 420 U.S. 534, 95 S.Ct. 1173, 43 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975); Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138, 17 S.Ct. 525, 41 L.Ed. 949 (1897); Bretti v. Wainwright, 225 So. 2d 516 (Fla.1969), approved in part, expunged in part, 255 So. 2d 266 (Fla.1971); Woodson v. State, 19 Fla. 549 (1…
-
Marshall v. State, 344 So. 2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…TT, J., concur. . Woodson v. State, 19 Fla. 549 (1882); Mitchell v. State, 294 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Bretti v. State, 210 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Decree v. State, 180 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965). . E. g., Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 90 S.Ct. 498, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970); Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138, 17 S.Ct. 525, 41 L.Ed. 949 (1897); Bonahan v. Nebraska, 125 U.S. 692, 8 S.Ct. 1390, 31 L.Ed. 854 (1887); Sanford v. State, 75 Okl.Cr. 362, 131 P. 2d 770 (1942); Tyler v. State, 3…
-
Jarrett v. State, 654 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…while appellant was in state custody. In State v. Gurican, 576 So. 2d 709 (Fla.1991), our supreme court addressed the question of when an appellate court should decide criminal appeals over which it has jurisdiction, quoting Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366, 90 S.Ct. 498, 498-99, 24 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), with apparent approval: No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case after the convicted defendant who has sought review escapes from the re…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 111 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. United States, 94 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1876)
- Bonahan v. Nebraska, 125 U.S. 692 (U.S. 1887)
- Allen v. Georgia, 166 U.S. 138 (U.S. 1897)
- Eisler v. United States, 338 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1949)
- Nat'l Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Arnold, 348 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1954)