Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Molinaro v. New Jersey

396 U.S. 365

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1970-01-20
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • holding that a fugitive is disentitled from calling upon the resources of the court for determination of their claims
  • holding that a fugitive is disentitled from calling upon the resources of the court for determination of his claims
  • stating that the dismissal of an appeal of a convicted defendant who has escaped from prison need not "await ... the expiration of a fixed period of time"
  • noting that an appellant’s fugitive status does not strip a case of its character as an adjudicable case or controversy
  • dismissing appeal because defendant’s refusal to surrender to authorities “disentitles [him] to call upon the resources of the Court for determination of his claims”
  • declining to adjudicate appellant’s criminal appeal where appellant was a fugitive from justice in that case
  • dismissing the appeal of a defendant’s conviction, when the defendant who was free on bail failed to surrender
  • dismissing appeal of defendant on bond who became fugitive by not surrendering

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Molinaro v. New Jersey. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
536 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Criminal Law & Procedure — Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine A convicted defendant who has sought review of his conviction and escapes from the restraints placed upon him pursuant to that conviction is not entitled to call upon the resources of the court for determination of his claims.
  2. Criminal Law & Procedure — Jurisdiction An escape by a convicted defendant who has sought review does not strip the case of its character as an adjudicable case or controversy.
  3. Criminal Law & Procedure — Appellate Authority Absent a specific statutory provision to the contrary, a court has the authority to dismiss the appeal of a defendant who has escaped custody pending review, and the dismissal need not await the end of the Term or the expiration of a fixed period of time.
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 *366 (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.