## Facts

- Marsha Lovercamp and a co-defendant were inmates at the California Rehabilitation Center.
- They briefly left the facility and were promptly captured nearby; both were charged with escape under Welfare & Institutions Code § 3002 and convicted by a jury.
- Defendants offered to prove that, during roughly two and one-half months in the institution, they were repeatedly threatened by a group of inmates with forcible sexual acts and violence.
- Defendants claimed they complained to institutional authorities several times, but officials provided no protection.
- On the day they left, a group of inmates confronted them again with the same threats; a fight occurred, and the group threatened future retaliation.
- Defendants asserted they feared death or serious injury if they remained, and that one defendant was especially vulnerable due to diminished intellectual functioning, which they sought to support with psychiatric testimony.
- The trial court excluded the proffered evidence, concluding necessity-type facts were not a legally available defense to escape, and defendants presented no further evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant charged with escape may present a limited necessity (or compulsion) defense when evidence shows an immediate threat of death, forcible sexual attack, or serious bodily harm, combined with prior futile attempts to obtain institutional protection.
2. Whether the trial court erred by excluding the defendants’ offer of proof and preventing the jury from considering that defense.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the escape convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that, in extreme circumstances, a limited necessity defense to escape is available.
- The court held the defendants’ offer of proof was sufficient to require admission of the evidence and submission of the defense to the jury, with appropriate instructions, if supported at retrial.

## Legal Principles

- Necessity may be a defense to escape only under narrowly limited conditions designed to prevent abuse and preserve custodial security.
- A defendant must produce evidence supporting each of the following conditions to reach the jury:
  - A specific threat of death, forcible sexual attack, or substantial bodily injury in the immediate future.
  - No time to complain to authorities, or a history of futile complaints making relief illusory.
  - No time or realistic opportunity to resort to the courts.
  - No force or violence used against correctional personnel or innocent persons during the escape.
  - Prompt reporting to authorities once a position of safety from the imminent threat is reached.
- When a defendant makes a sufficient showing on these elements, credibility and factual disputes (imminence, reasonableness, and availability of alternatives) are for the jury, not the court, to resolve.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a strictly limited necessity defense to escape and required a new trial because the defendants were barred from presenting evidence that, if credited, could satisfy the defense’s conditions and warrant acquittal.


People v. Lovercamp, 43 Cal. App. 3d 823, 118 Cal. Rptr. 110 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974)