(a) A person is guilty of escape in the first degree (1) if he escapes from a correctional institution or (2) if he escapes from any public or private, nonprofit halfway house, group home or mental health facility or community residence to which he was transferred pursuant to subsection (e) of section
18-100 or section
18-100c and he is in the custody of the Commissioner of Correction or is required to be returned to the custody of said commissioner upon his release from such facility or (3) if he escapes from a work detail or school on the premises of the correctional institution or (4) if he fails to return from a furlough authorized under section
18-101a or (5) if he fails to return from work release or education release as authorized under sections
18-90a and
18-100 or (6) if he escapes from a hospital for mental illness in which he has been confined under the provisions of section
17a-582,
17a-584,
17a-593,
17a-594 or
17a-596 or (7) if, while under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, but not confined to a hospital for mental illness, he leaves the state without authorization of the board.
(b) Escape in the first degree is a class C felony.
(1969, P.A. 828, S. 171; P.A. 73-639, S. 12; P.A. 74-338, S. 47, 94; P.A. 78-92, S. 2; P.A. 80-216, S. 2; P.A. 82-12; P.A. 84-236, S. 1; P.A. 85-506, S. 25, 32; P.A. 89-383, S. 2, 16; P.A. 98-39.)
History: P.A. 73-639 replaced offense of escape from a correctional institution with offense of escape in the first degree which includes escapes from correctional institutions and escapes from work details or schools on institution premises; P.A. 74-338 specified failure to return from furlough as first degree escape; P.A 78-92 specified escapes from halfway house, group home or mental health facility and failure to return from work-release or education release as first degree escape; P.A. 80-216 specified escape from halfway house, group home or mental health facility is first degree escape if escapee is in correction commissioner's custody or is to be returned to his custody upon release from the facility; P.A. 82-12 added Subsec. (a)(6) re person who escapes from a state hospital or treatment facility; P.A. 84-236 amended Subsec. (a)(2) to include escapes from community residences; P.A. 85-506 amended Subsec. (a)(6) to replace “state hospital or other treatment facility” with “hospital for mental illness” and replace reference to repealed Sec. 53a-47 with “section 17-257c, 17-257e, 17-257n, 17-257o or 17-257q”, and added Subdiv. (7) concerning a person under the jurisdiction of the psychiatric security review board who leaves the state; P.A. 89-383 amended Subsec. (a)(2) to include a person who escapes from his abode to which he was released pursuant to Sec. 18-100(f), effective July 5, 1989, to July 1, 1994 (Revisor's note: The amendment to this section contained in P.A. 89-393 was deleted by the Revisors following its expiration on July 1, 1994); P.A. 98-39 amended Subsec. (a)(2) to add reference to Sec. 18-100c.
See Sec. 18-101a re consideration of prisoner's failure to return from furlough as crime of escape.
Illegal confinement is no defense to escape from correctional institution. 169 C. 438. Cited. 184 C. 157. Held constitutional as to both due process and equal protection clauses of fourteenth amendment to U.S. Constitution. Id., 222. Defendant's acts did not constitute violation of statute as it was amended as of date of acts as he was not then under jurisdiction of Commissioner of Correction. 185 C. 517. Cited. 216 C. 402; 226 C. 497; 234 C. 301.
Cited. 36 CA 440; 39 CA 333; Id., 407; Id., 789.
Cited. 35 CS 544.
Subsec. (a):
Cited. 213 C. 38. Subdiv. (2): Proof of single failure to report insufficient to prove guilt of “escape”. 216 C. 402. Subdiv. (2): Decision of Appellate Court in 35 CA 1 overruled to the extent that it permits conviction for escape to rest solely on jury's finding that defendant repeatedly did not report to supervising officer as scheduled. 234 C. 301. Cited. 235 C. 748; 236 C. 209; Id., 266; 241 C. 322.
Cited. 29 CA 817; 35 CA 1; 36 CA 680; Id., 813, 815. Subdiv. (2) simply identifies another environment–a community residence–from which an unauthorized departure, or to which a failure to return, is possible and made culpable; escape is a general intent crime, and all that is necessary to prove the element of intent is that defendant have the general intent to perform the acts that constitute the offense. 121 CA 443.
Subdiv. (3): Equating failure to return from parole with escape held not violative of constitutional right to due process and equal protection. 36 CS 71.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
31
cases, 1975–2019 · leading case:
State v. Lubus, 581 A.2d 1045 (Conn. 1990).
State v. Lubus, 581 A.2d 1045 (Conn. 1990).
· cites it 31× “The sole issue in this appeal is whether a convicted felon who has permission to serve his sentence in a private home may be found guilty of the crime of escape under General Statutes § 53a-169 (a) (2) 1 for *404 a single failure to report to his designated supervising officer.”
State v. Delafose, 441 A.2d 158 (Conn. 1981).
· cites it 15× “On October 17, 1979, the defendant was charged with the crime of escape in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-169 on the basis of his having left the mental institution in June.”
United States v. Mills, 570 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2009).
· cites it 8× “He argues, however, that he did not have three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses, and that he therefore should not have been sentenced under the ACCA.”
State v. Woods, 662 A.2d 732 (Conn. 1995).
· cites it 11× “to 1991) § 53a-169 (a) (2). 1 The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c).”
State v. Atkinson, 670 A.2d 276 (Conn. 1996).
· cites it 4× “…in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8, 53a-49 and 53a-59 (a) (1), escape in the first degree *751 in violation of General Statutes § 53a-169 (a) (1), and assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (5). The trial court imposed a total…”
State v. Jemison, 643 A.2d 1287 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994).
· cites it 13× “The defendant appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of escape in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-169 (a) (2). 1 The dispositive issue is whether the trial court properly instructed the jury that the defendant could be found guilty of escape in…”
State v. Pickel, 995 A.2d 125 (Conn. App. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 7× “The defendant, Drice Pickel, appeals from the judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of escape in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-169 (a) (2). The defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.”
Humble v. Comm'r of Corr., 184 A.3d 804 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 2× “The state charged the petitioner, in two criminal cases, with murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a, criminal use of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-216, criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217, and escape in the…”
State v. Shashaty, 742 A.2d 786 (Conn. 1999).
· cites it 4× “The defendant, Timothy Shashaty, was charged by a substitute information with escape in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-169 (a) (l), 1 and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a (a).”
State v. Hanks, 665 A.2d 102 (Conn. App. Ct. 1995).
· cites it 3× “” General Statutes § 53a-169 provides in relevant part: “(a) A person is guilty of escape in the first degree (1) if he escapes from a correctional institution .”
Asherman v. Meachum, 566 A.2d 663 (Conn. 1989).
· cites it 2× “Even more significant, the law distinguishes sharply between home release and parole in the consequences it assigns to absconding from supervision.”
State v. Gaston, 860 A.2d 1253 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 2× “The defendant, Andre Jerome Gaston, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of escape in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-169 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly (1) denied his motion for a…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-169(a) — 2 cases
United States v. Mills, 570 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2009).
“He argues, however, that he did not have three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses, and that he therefore should not have been sentenced under the ACCA.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-169(a)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Mills, 570 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2009).
“He argues, however, that he did not have three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses, and that he therefore should not have been sentenced under the ACCA.”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-169(a)(2) — 2 cases
United States v. Mills, 570 F.3d 508 (2d Cir. 2009).
“He argues, however, that he did not have three prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses, and that he therefore should not have been sentenced under the ACCA.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.