K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-3809 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-3809.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3809; L. 1982, ch. 134, § 1; L. 1986, ch. 123, § 1; L. 1992, ch. 298, § 88; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 102; L. 1996, ch. 185, § 1; L. 2006, ch. 169, § 97; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2022 · leading case: State v. Urban, 239 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Urban, 239 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2010). · cites it 20× “at 771 (quoting K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 21-3809[b][l]; see also L.”
State v. Urban, 193 P.3d 515 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 12× “The district court dismissed the charge because it believed Urban’s PR bond and placement at the facility did not fit the definition of custody under K.S.A. 21-3809(b)(1). But Urban’s placement at the facility was not merely incidental to her PR bond, and her confinement there…”
State v. Garrett, 684 P.2d 413 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 7× “In 1982, the Kansas legislature amended K.S.A. 21-3809 to clarify the crime of escape from custody.”
State v. Pruett, 515 P.2d 1051 (Kan. 1973). · cites it 6× “Wendelken answered ready for trial on count one, the charge of aggravated battery, and announced the defendant's readiness to enter a plea of guilty on count two to a charge of escape from custody as a misdemeanor under K.S.A. 21-3809. The deputy county attorney, S.”
State v. Pichon, 811 P.2d 517 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 3× “21-3810 does not define “custody,” K.S.A. 21-3809, the statute defining the misdemeanor crime escape from custody, was amended in 1982 to add such a definition.”
State v. Briggs, 48 P.3d 686 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “He was convicted of obstructing official duty. On appeal, Logan argued he should have been charged with aggravated escape from custody instead of obstruction.”
State v. Kraft, 163 P.3d 361 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “To the extent that the resolution of tire issue requires interpretation of K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3809 and K.S.A. 2004 Supp.”
State v. Moralez, 242 P.3d 223 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “21-3808 (obstruction of official duty); K.S.A. 21-3809 (escape from custody includes "departure .”
State v. Babcock, 597 P.2d 1117 (Kan. 1979). “21-4614, the crucial question is whether the person is in custody. In such a determination the circumstances of placement of the person in the facility are of greater significance than the nature of the facility itself.”
Mt. Carmel Med. Ctr. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 566 P.2d 384 (Kan. Ct. App. 1977). “In the applicable criminal statute (K.S.A. 21-3809 [2]), “escape” has been defined to mean “departure from custody without lawful authority or failure to return to custody following temporary leave lawfully granted pursuant to express authorization of law or order of a court.”
State v. Logan, 654 P.2d 492 (Kan. Ct. App. 1982). “2d 1051 (1973), the court held: “The escape statutes, K.S.A. 1971 Supp. 21-3809 and 21-3810, are applicable only where a person escapes from lawful custody while being held on a written charge contained in a complaint, information or indictment.”
State v. Hinkle, 65 P.3d 1058 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “See K.S.A. 21-3809 (Ensley 1981). As a result, the court relied upon the general definition of custody found in the criminal procedure statutes.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-3809(b) — 1 case
State v. Kraft, 163 P.3d 361 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “To the extent that the resolution of tire issue requires interpretation of K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3809 and K.S.A. 2004 Supp.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3809(b)(1) — 6 cases
State v. Urban, 239 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2010). “at 771 (quoting K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 21-3809[b][l]; see also L.”
State v. Urban, 193 P.3d 515 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “The district court dismissed the charge because it believed Urban’s PR bond and placement at the facility did not fit the definition of custody under K.S.A. 21-3809(b)(1). But Urban’s placement at the facility was not merely incidental to her PR bond, and her confinement there…”
State v. Briggs, 48 P.3d 686 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002). “He was convicted of obstructing official duty. On appeal, Logan argued he should have been charged with aggravated escape from custody instead of obstruction.”
State v. Pichon, 811 P.2d 517 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991). “21-3810 does not define “custody,” K.S.A. 21-3809, the statute defining the misdemeanor crime escape from custody, was amended in 1982 to add such a definition.”
State v. Kraft, 163 P.3d 361 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “To the extent that the resolution of tire issue requires interpretation of K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3809 and K.S.A. 2004 Supp.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3809(b)(2) — 1 case
State v. Hinkle, 65 P.3d 1058 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003). “See K.S.A. 21-3809 (Ensley 1981). As a result, the court relied upon the general definition of custody found in the criminal procedure statutes.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3809(b)(l) — 3 cases
State v. Urban, 239 P.3d 837 (Kan. 2010). “at 771 (quoting K.S.A. 1983 Supp. 21-3809[b][l]; see also L.”
State v. Kraft, 163 P.3d 361 (Kan. Ct. App. 2007). “To the extent that the resolution of tire issue requires interpretation of K.S.A. 2004 Supp. 21-3809 and K.S.A. 2004 Supp.”
State v. Graves, 278 P.3d 993 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
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.