Offenses Against the State and Public Justice
Escape in the second degree
Notes of Decisions
The facts warranted submission to the jury the question whether defendant “escaped” within the meaning of this provision and a related provision, ORS 162.135, and not only a charge of attempt to escape, where defendant broke away and ran from a guard in courthouse parking lot and was caught only moments later, having never been more than 20 steps ahead of the guard. State v. Fitzgerald, 16 Or App 376, 518 P2d 678 (1974), Sup Ct review denied
The State of Oregon had no jurisdiction over the Indian defendant for an escape which occurred solely and entirely upon the Warm Springs Reservation. State v. Smith, 277 Or 251, 560 P2d 1066 (1977)
Where defendant who escaped from confinement in work camp located in Tillamook County, was charged with escape under this section, venue was proper only in that county so prosecuting defendant in Marion County, where he had been confined prior to transfer, was improper. State v. Dillenburg, 49 Or App 911, 621 P2d 1193 (1980)
Custody is “result” of conviction or finding of guilt if person has been placed in actual or constructive restraint of police officer, and not within correctional facility, following finding of guilt and remand to custody of officer or agency or following judgment of conviction and order of commitment to correctional facility. State v. Palaia, 289 Or 463, 614 P2d 1120 (1980)
Program from which defendant escaped qualified as “work release program” and defendant was in constructive custody of Multnomah County jail, a correctional facility. State v. Scott, 94 Or App 250, 764 P2d 976 (1988)
Defendant was guilty of escape in second degree when defendant failed to comply with terms of inmate furlough program including requirements that defendant return to sister’s home each evening and maintain phone contact with sheriff’s department. State v. Sasser, 104 Or App 251, 799 P2d 1146 (1990), Sup Ct review denied
Where defendant was in custody at time jury rendered guilty verdict and court received verdict, custody status of defendant was result of guilty verdict even though court did not expressly remand defendant. State v. McCauley, 119 Or App 384, 851 P2d 608 (1993), Sup Ct review denied
Where home detention qualified as conditional release, failure to comply with terms was not escape. State v. Wilde, 123 Or App 493, 862 P2d 105 (1993)
Unauthorized departure from court-ordered home detention constituted escape from correctional facility. State v. Esmond, 125 Or App 613, 866 P2d 494 (1994)
Where defendant escaping from outside site was under uninterrupted supervision of correctional facility employee, escape was from constructive confinement in correctional facility rather than from custody. State v. Croghan, 162 Or App 251, 986 P2d 579 (1999), Sup Ct review denied
“Escaping from custody” means that person subject to actual or constructive restraint or control by peace officer sets out on course of action that results, even momentarily, in person no longer being within officer’s restraint or control. State v. Metcalfe, 172 Or App 501, 19 P3d 374 (2001)
Where deputy sheriff was present in courtroom, order reducing defendant to custody of deputy sheriff made courtroom correctional facility. State v. Lane, 341 Or 433, 144 P3d 927 (2006)
Act of escaping is complete at time person departs from actual or constructive restraint by peace officer. State v. Lonergan, 344 Or 15, 176 P3d 374 (2008)
For purpose of determining whether person used or threatened to use physical force to escape custody, person is in custody when peace officer has actually or constructively restrained person for purpose of charging person with offense. State v. Alexander, 238 Or App 597, 243 P3d 476 (2010), Sup Ct review denied
Escape from custody imposed as result of post-prison supervision violation after defendant served sentence of incarceration is not escape from custody “imposed as a result” of felony conviction within meaning of this section. State v. Patterson, 269 Or App 885, 346 P3d 614 (2015)