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
- Whether R.C. 2921.34(B), by excluding certain defenses to escape, also precludes the common-law affirmative defense of necessity/duress.
- 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.