Criminal Law: Solicitation in California to do an Act Outside the State
![handle is hein.journals/hastlj7 and id is 220 raw text is: THE HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL
power to make provision for the proper care and treatment of persons who become tempo-
rarily insane while in custody of the United States awaiting trial upon criminal charges.
. . .21 [Emphasis added.]
Doubtless, the intention of Congress in enacting this legislation was to provide
an effective and practical means for dealing with mentally incompetent prisoners.
Reluctance by some states to adequately provide facilities for such persons and the
infeasability of outright release manifest the need for reform measures. But by
holding the incarceration of the permanently incompetent to be unconstitutional, the
courts properly place the responsibility for such reform at the state level. The
recognition of problems, however urgent, and the formulation of curative expedien-
cies cannot create federal power where none, in fact, exists. Mindful of this, the
dissenting judge in the Greenwood case stated that:
... as a practical matter much can be said in favor of the result arrived at by the
majority. However, as I am convinced that the United States has no jurisdiction over
permanently insane persons for an indefinite period, this conclusion cannot be altered by
practical considerations.22
-William Donald Piercy.
CRIMINAL LAW: SOLICITATION IN CALIFORNIA TO Do AN ACT OUTSIDE THE
STATE.
C'est la gin6rale loi des loix, que chacun observe celle du liew oi il est. (It is the
general law of laws that everyone should observe that of the place where he is.) 1
It was Montaigne, the celebrated French author, who first made that statement
back in the year 1580. In 1955, some 375 years later, the same basic idea was used
by the California Supreme Court to sustain the conviction of one John James Burt,
prospective extortionist, of solicitation-solicitation in California aimed at the com-
mission of an act in the Republic of Mexico. People v. Burt2 thus raised a question
not previously settled by the California courts: May a person be punished for solicita-
tion in this state when he solicits the doing of an act outside the state which, though
such act is criminal in California, is not shown to be criminal outside of that state,
and which act is never performed nor any steps taken toward its performance in either
place? The answer is, Yes.
People v. Chase,3 decided in 1931, was a somewhat similar case, but it included
an element not found in the Burt case. Defendants in the Chase case were charged
with violation of a California statute4 which prohibited any person from prevailing
upon another to visit a gambling ship. In that case, however, the persons prevailed
upon did actually thereafter visit the ship, whereas in the Burt case there was no action
beyond the mere solicitation. The court said in the Chase case that no crime would
have been committed by the mere passing of the invitation, because the word prevails
Higgins v. United States, 205 F.2d 650, 653 (9th Cir. 1953).
-Greenwood v. United States, 219 F.2d 376, 388 (8th Cir. 1955).
1 MONTAIGNE, ESSAYS (1580).
'45 Cal.2d - , 288 P.2d 503 (1955).
117 Cal.App. 775, 1 P.2d 60 (1931).
'CALIF. PEN. CODE, § 318 (1949).
[Vol. 7](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/hastlj7&div=29&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Criminal Law: Solicitation in California to do an Act Outside the State
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most