United States v. Bailey
62 L. Ed. 2d 575 · Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
Facts
In the early morning hours of August 26, 1976, federal prisoners Clifford Bailey, James T. Cogdell, Ronald C. Cooley, and Ralph Walker escaped from the District of Columbia jail by crawling through a window and sliding down a knotted bedsheet. They remained at large for periods ranging from one month to three and a half months before being recaptured. At their trials for violating 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), the respondents offered evidence of harsh jail conditions, including frequent fires, poor ventilation, beatings, and death threats from guards. Cooley and Bailey testified that their 'people' tried to contact authorities, and Bailey claimed he 'had the jail officials called several times.' Walker stated he called the FBI three times but did not surrender because he could not be assured he wouldn't return to the D.C. jail.
Procedural history
Respondents were convicted by juries in District Court for violating 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). The District Court refused to submit jury instructions on their defense of duress or necessity, ruling they failed to present evidence of attempting to surrender after escape. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the convictions by a divided vote, holding that the District Court improperly precluded consideration of the evidence and that the jury should have considered whether respondents had an 'intent to avoid confinement.' The Supreme Court granted certiorari and now reverses the judgments of the Court of Appeals.
Issue
What is the required mental state (mens rea) for a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a) for escape from federal custody? What are the necessary elements for a defendant to assert a defense of duress or necessity in an escape case, particularly regarding the requirement to surrender after the initial escape?
Holding
The Court held that the prosecution fulfills its burden under § 751(a) by demonstrating that an escapee knew his actions would result in leaving physical confinement without permission. The Court also held that to be entitled to an instruction on duress or necessity as a defense to escape, an escapee must offer evidence of a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody as soon as the claimed duress or necessity had lost its coercive force.
Rule
For a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), the prosecution must prove the defendant knowingly committed an act which the law makes a crime, meaning they knew they were leaving physical confinement without permission. A heightened standard of 'intent to avoid confinement' is not required. Escape from federal custody is a continuing offense, meaning an escapee can be held liable for failure to return to custody as well as for the initial departure. To assert a defense of duress or necessity in an escape case, the defendant must proffer evidence of a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody as soon as the claimed duress or necessity had lost its coercive force. Without such evidence, the defense fails as a matter of law, and a jury instruction on duress or necessity is not warranted.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.