§710-1021 Escape in the second degree. (1) A person commits the offense of escape in the second degree if the person intentionally escapes from a correctional or detention facility or from custody.
(2) Escape in the second degree is a class C felony. [L 1972, c 9, pt of 1; gen ch 1993]
Case Notes
Defense of necessity under §703-302 is available in escape situations. 58 H. 252, 566 P.2d 1378 (1977).
Minor failing to return to detention facility after furlough commits escape. 59 H. 456, 583 P.2d 337 (1978).
Sufficiency of indictment. 59 H. 549, 584 P.2d 117 (1978).
Arrest is complete and defendant is in "custody" when defendant has submitted to police and process of taking defendant to police station or to a judge has commenced. 62 H. 99, 612 P.2d 102 (1980).
Although not handcuffed, defendant had been placed under arrest and was therefore in custody for purposes of escape statute. 72 H. 360, 817 P.2d 1060 (1991).
COMMENTARY ON §§710-1020 AND 710-1021
The basic offense of escape is punished by the Code as a class C felony. When the aggravating circumstances of force or violence are present, the grade of the offense is increased to a class B felony.
Escape is a fairly serious offense not only because of the potential danger to guards and bystanders incident to the nature of the activity but because it undermines the effectiveness of the system of criminal correction and punishment. From the administrative point of view, there are the disruptions of prison routine and the expense of recapture to consider as additional social evils. Moreover, when a question is raised concerning the legality of the detention, it is desirable to encourage reliance on legal processes, rather than self-help, to terminate any unjustified detention. In the absence of force or violence, the above social dangers and administrative inconvenience, alone, justify the class C felony sanction.
Previous Hawaii law graded escape on the basis of the crime for which the actor was originally in custody.[1] There are two objections to this approach. First, where the actor has been lawfully imprisoned as a sanction for a crime which the actor has committed, the danger presented by the actor's escape is sui generis and has nothing to do with the offense for which the actor was committed. If a thief and a forger (or an accused thief and an accused forger) were to escape by identical methods, they should be penalized identically, according to the danger presented by their escapes alone. Hence, the Code has rejected this aspect of the former law and grades escapes according to the degree of individual and social danger presented by the actor's conduct.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §§710-1020 AND 710-1021
The Code as adopted by the legislature in 1972 differs from the Proposed Draft in two areas. First, it includes escapes from "correctional" as well as "detention" facilities while the Proposed Draft did not. Correctional facilities were included in order to clarify that the offenses apply to existing diagnostic and rehabilitation programs as well as detention facilities. Conference Committee Report No. 2 (1972).
Second, the Code makes the penalty for escape more severe than the Proposed Draft. Under the Code, escape in the first degree is a class B felony, and escape in the second degree is a class C felony. The Proposed Draft had stated the penalties as class C and misdemeanor, respectively.
__________
§§710-1020 And 710-1021 Commentary:
1. H.R.S. §§740-1 through 740-3.
Section: Previous 710-1016.8 710-1016.9 710-1017 710-1017.5 710-1018 710-1019 710-1020 710-1021 710-1022 710-1023 710-1024 710-1025 710-1026 710-1027 710-1028 NextLast modified: October 27, 2016