## Facts

- Brandon N. Irons, an inmate, was assigned to the Wichita Community Residential Center (CRC), a work-release facility.
- After Irons gave a television interview describing CRC positively, other inmates became angry; he became fearful and avoided sleeping in his dorm room.
- Irons claimed that, when he signed out to go to work, two inmates chased him and told him they would kill him when he returned to CRC.
- Irons called CRC and spoke with an assistant administrator who allegedly agreed to call back; Irons said he made additional unsuccessful attempts to reach the administrator.
- Irons did not return to CRC; instead, he left Kansas, went to Texas, and remained away for about five months until arrested.
- The State charged Irons with aggravated escape from custody.
- Before trial, the court excluded Irons’s proposed testimony supporting a compulsion defense, ruling the alleged threats were not sufficiently imminent; Irons was convicted.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant charged with aggravated escape from custody may present a compulsion (duress) defense without satisfying the five-factor test governing compulsion in escape cases.
2. Whether Irons’s proffered evidence satisfied the requirements for submitting a compulsion defense to the jury, including imminence of the threat and prompt reporting to authorities after reaching safety.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the conviction.
- It held that a compulsion defense to an escape charge is available only if the defendant satisfies the five-factor test used for escape-related compulsion claims.
- The court concluded Irons’s proffer did not meet the test because the threat was not shown to be immediate and because Irons failed to report to authorities after reaching safety, instead remaining away for months.

## Legal Principles

- Compulsion requires a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm; a contingent or future threat is insufficient.
- In escape cases, compulsion is conditioned on a five-factor showing: (1) imminent threat; (2) no realistic time to complain to authorities (or prior futile complaints); (3) no time to seek judicial relief; (4) no force or violence during the escape; and (5) immediate reporting to proper authorities after attaining safety.
- Failure to surrender or promptly report after the immediate danger passes defeats the defense as a matter of law.
- A trial court may exclude compulsion evidence and withhold the defense from the jury when the proffer, even if credited, cannot satisfy the required elements.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Irons’s aggravated escape conviction, ruling that compulsion in the escape context is narrowly limited and unavailable where the alleged threat is not immediate and the defendant does not promptly report to authorities after reaching a safe position.


State v. Irons, 815 P.2d 1133 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991)