Minnesota Statutes
Minn. Stat. § 613.29 (2026)
[Repealed]
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official)
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[Repealed, 1963 c 753 art 2 s 17]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1956–1969 · leading case: Cable v. State, 169 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. 1969).
Cable v. State, 169 N.W.2d 391 (Minn. 1969). “1961, § 613.29) and two charges of grand larceny in the second degree (Minn.”
State v. Jones, 124 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 1963). “” Although there is no direct evidence in the instant case to show that the defendant voluntarily departed from the jail at the time involved, there is circumstantial evidence permitting an inference that his departure was a voluntary one with an intent to escape within the…”
State v. Rasmussen, 118 N.W.2d 433 (Minn. 1962). “19, which provides that: “* * * Every prisoner under a jail sentence, or awaiting trial, who shall break jail and escape, if the offense for which he is confined is not capital, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for six months; * * On December 27, 1960, the…”
State Ex Rel. Lange v. Tahash, 119 N.W.2d 15 (Minn. 1962). “On August 22, 1960, an information was filed *302 in the district court of said county charging him under § 613.29 with “wrongfully, unlawfully, and feloniously” escaping from the custody of the sheriff while being held on the charge of second-degree forgery, a felony.”
State v. Putnam, 79 N.W.2d 273 (Minn. 1956). “to wit, the prison farm of the Minnesota state prison, on a conviction of forgery, second degree, by virtue of a commitment issued by the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota, dated May 13, 1951, and that he had wilfully, unlawfully, wrongfully, and felo- ' niously…”
State Ex Rel. Gerberding v. Tahash, 146 N.W.2d 541 (Minn. 1966). “1961, § 613.29, (superseded by Minn. St. 609.485) made escape a felony but did not specially prescribe punishment.”
State v. Kalkbrenner, 116 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. 1962). “19, and the other for escape from lawful custody, § 613.29. While the record does not disclose the maximum combined terms which the defendant still faces, it is apparent that they have not yet expired.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.