People v. Unger

Supreme Court of Illinois · 1977 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawEscapeAffirmative DefensesNecessityCompulsionJury Instructionsescapenecessity

Facts

While serving a sentence at the Illinois State Penitentiary, defendant was transferred to the minimum security honor farm and later walked away from it. He testified that before and after the transfer he was threatened with forced homosexual activity, was sexually assaulted by three inmates, and on the day of the escape received a death threat because the caller believed he had reported the assault. Defendant said he escaped to save his life and intended to return after finding help, but he never reported these incidents to prison officials and was apprehended two days later. At trial, the court instructed the jury that the reasons for the escape were immaterial and refused defendant's tendered instructions on compulsion and necessity.

Issue

Whether, in a prosecution for prison escape, the trial court erred by instructing the jury to disregard defendant's reasons for leaving and by refusing to instruct on affirmative defenses based on his evidence of threats and sexual assault. More specifically, the question was whether necessity or compulsion was legally available on these facts and whether defendant introduced enough evidence to require a necessity instruction.

Rule

A defendant is entitled to instructions on his theory of the case when supported by the evidence. Under section 3-2, a defendant need present only some evidence to raise an affirmative defense. In prison escape cases involving threatened or actual sexual assault and fear of reprisal, the proper defense is necessity, not compulsion, unless the prisoner was coerced by an imminent threat to perform the specific act of escape. The Lovercamp conditions are relevant to weight and credibility but are not mandatory elements that must all be proved as a matter of law before a necessity instruction may be given.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

While confined at a minimum-security facility outside Peoria, Devon Ruiz testified that two inmates had repeatedly threatened to stab him unless he submitted to sexual acts. He said one assault had already occurred, that he feared reporting it because inmates had warned him they would retaliate, and that he walked away from a work detail to avoid being killed.

At Devon's escape trial, the judge refuses a necessity instruction because the prosecution introduced prior statements suggesting Devon also wanted to draw attention to what he believed was an excessive sentence. Was the refusal proper?

Explanation. A defendant is entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case when supported by some evidence. In an escape case involving actual or threatened sexual assault and fear of reprisal, the majority treated necessity as the proper defense unless the defendant was specifically coerced to perform the act of escape. Evidence casting doubt on motive does not permit the court to withhold the instruction; that concerns weight and credibility, which are for the jury.