§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.



  Minor failing to return to detention facility after furlough
commits escape.  59 H. 456, 583 P.2d 337.



  Sufficiency of indictment.  59 H. 549, 584 P.2d 117.



  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.



  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.



 



COMMENTARY ON §§710-1020 AND 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 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 1021 Commentary:



 



1.  H.R.S. §§740-1 through 740-3.