## Facts

- Wesley Allen Tuttle, an inmate serving a life sentence for capital homicide, was assigned with another inmate to perform maintenance work inside the Utah State Prison.
- The work assignment and maintenance clothing allowed the inmates to move beyond usual checkpoints with little scrutiny.
- According to the other inmate, an unidentified inmate warned that he and Tuttle would be killed by other inmates if they returned to the main corridor.
- Tuttle and two other inmates left the prison without authorization and were not immediately detected.
- Two escapees were apprehended the same day; Tuttle remained at large for about five months and was apprehended in Las Vegas.
- Tuttle was charged with escape from official custody under Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-309 and asserted the statutory affirmative defense of duress (compulsion) under Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-302.
- Tuttle requested a jury instruction closely tracking the statutory duress language; the trial court instead instructed on duress but added three escape-specific conditions.
- The jury convicted Tuttle, and he appealed, arguing the added conditions improperly narrowed the statutory defense.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by modifying the statutory duress instruction for an escape prosecution by adding requirements not expressly stated in Utah’s duress statute.
2. Whether Utah’s general duress statute permits a more restrictive formulation when applied to escape from official custody.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the trial court permissibly adapted the duress instruction to the escape context.
- The court approved requiring the defendant to prove: (1) a specific threat of death or substantial bodily injury, (2) no time to seek official help or that seeking help would have been futile, and (3) immediate reporting to authorities once safe from the threat.
- The court reasoned that Tuttle’s extended absence from custody was inconsistent with duress limited to an imminent threat.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory defenses may require contextual construction when statutory terms (such as “imminent” threatened force and “reasonable firmness”) are applied to a particular offense.
- In escape cases, duress may be limited to situations involving a specific and imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm; generalized fear of prison violence is insufficient.
- Duress generally requires the absence of a reasonable alternative to the criminal act; for prisoners, a key alternative is seeking protection from prison authorities, unless doing so is impossible or demonstrably futile.
- Duress excuses unlawful conduct only while coercion is operative; when the immediate threat ends, the defendant must promptly surrender or report to authorities to maintain the defense.
- Prolonged flight after escape supports rejecting a claim that the escape was compelled solely by an imminent threat.

## Conclusion

The court upheld escape-specific limits on the duress instruction, concluding that requiring a specific imminent threat, lack of reasonable alternatives, and prompt surrender reasonably implements the statutory duress standard in the prison-escape setting and supports affirmance of the conviction.


State v. Tuttle, 730 P.2d 630 (Utah 1986)