## Facts

- Richard Cross was jailed in a county facility awaiting trial on an aggravated-arson charge.
- Cross left the jail through a hole in a fire door made by other prisoners and fled to Mexico.
- About three weeks later, Cross returned and surrendered to authorities.
- Cross claimed he escaped due to allegedly intolerable jail conditions, including lack of heat and limited water, and because he lacked counsel or information about his case.
- The record showed Cross complained about having a common cold, but did not show a formal complaint about heat or water conditions.
- Cross had access to a telephone while detained.
- At his escape trial, Cross sought to introduce evidence of jail conditions and requested a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of necessity/duress.
- The trial court excluded the conditions evidence and refused the requested instruction; Cross was convicted of escape under R.C. 2921.34.

## Issues

1. Whether R.C. 2921.34(B), by excluding certain defenses to escape, also precludes the common-law affirmative defense of necessity/duress.
2. If necessity/duress is not precluded, whether Cross presented legally sufficient evidence to require a jury instruction on that defense.

## Decision

- The Ohio Supreme Court held that R.C. 2921.34(B) does not preclude the common-law affirmative defense of necessity/duress in escape prosecutions.
- The Court affirmed Cross’s conviction because his proffered evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to warrant submitting necessity/duress to the jury.
- Because the defense was not supported on the record, the trial court did not err in refusing the instruction and excluding detailed conditions evidence as irrelevant to an unavailable defense.

## Legal Principles

- R.C. 2921.34(B) excludes only two defenses—irregularity in bringing about or maintaining detention, and lack of jurisdiction of the detaining authority—and does not, by implication, abolish other common-law defenses such as necessity/duress.
- Necessity/duress may be available in escape cases only under strict conditions, generally requiring:
  - an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury,
  - no reasonable lawful alternatives to avoid the threatened harm, and
  - conduct consistent with escaping only to avoid the harm (including surrender within a reasonable time once the coercive conditions abate).
- General allegations of uncomfortable, unsanitary, or undesirable confinement conditions, without proof of imminent serious harm and the absence of lawful alternatives, are insufficient to require a necessity/duress instruction.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court recognized that necessity/duress is not statutorily barred as a defense to escape under R.C. 2921.34(B), but it affirmed Cross’s conviction because his evidence did not satisfy the stringent requirements needed to submit that defense to a jury.


State v. Cross, 58 Ohio St. 2d 482 (1979)