Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 755 (2026)

Escape

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
1.  A person is guilty of escape if without official permission the person intentionally:  
A. Leaves official custody or intentionally fails to return to official custody following temporary leave granted for a specific purpose or a limited period. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime; or   [PL 2001, c. 383, §90 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
B. Violates paragraph A and at the time of the escape the person uses physical force against another person, threatens to use physical force or is armed with a dangerous weapon. Violation of this paragraph is a Class B crime.   [PL 2001, c. 383, §90 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
[PL 2001, c. 383, §90 (RPR); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
1-A.    
[PL 2013, c. 133, §6 (RP).]
1-B.  A person is guilty of escape from supervised community confinement granted pursuant to Title 34‑A, section 3036‑A if without official permission the person intentionally:  
A. Fails to return to the correctional facility from which transfer was made upon the direction of the Commissioner of Corrections or otherwise intentionally violates a curfew, residence, time or travel restriction. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime; or   [PL 2003, c. 711, Pt. A, §6 (AMD).]
B. Violates paragraph A and at the time of the escape the person uses physical force against another person, threatens to use physical force or is armed with a dangerous weapon. Violation of this paragraph is a Class B crime.   [PL 2001, c. 383, §92 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
[PL 2003, c. 711, Pt. A, §6 (AMD).]
1-C.  A person is guilty of escape from furlough or other rehabilitative program authorized under Title 34‑A, section 3035 if the person intentionally:  
A. Goes to a location other than that permitted by the terms of the leave. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or   [PL 2001, c. 383, §93 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
B. Violates paragraph A and at the time of the escape the person uses physical force against another person, threatens to use physical force or is armed with a dangerous weapon. Violation of this paragraph is a Class B crime.   [PL 2001, c. 383, §93 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
[PL 2001, c. 383, §93 (RPR); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
1-D.  A person is guilty of escape from arrest or escape during transport following arrest if without official permission the arrested person intentionally:  
A. Leaves following arrest prior to being transported, or while being transported to a jail, police station or other initial place of detention or to a courthouse when a court has ordered that the person be arrested and transported directly to court. Violation of this paragraph is a Class D crime; or   [PL 2005, c. 63, §1 (AMD).]
B. Violates paragraph A and at the time of the escape the person uses physical force against another person, threatens to use physical force or is armed with a dangerous weapon. Violation of this paragraph is a Class B crime.   [PL 2001, c. 667, Pt. D, §20 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 667, Pt. D, §36 (AFF).]
[PL 2005, c. 63, §1 (AMD).]
1-E.  A person is guilty of escape from the community confinement monitoring program granted pursuant to Title 30‑A, section 1659‑A if without official permission the person intentionally:  
A. Leaves or fails to return within 12 hours to that person's residence or other designated area in which that person is monitored. Violation of this paragraph is a Class C crime; or   [PL 2011, c. 464, §15 (NEW).]
B. Violates paragraph A and at the time of the escape the person uses physical force against another person, threatens to use physical force or is armed with a dangerous weapon. Violation of this paragraph is a Class B crime.   [PL 2011, c. 464, §15 (NEW).]
A sentence imposed for a violation of this section is subject to the requirements of section 1609‑A.  
[PL 2021, c. 260, §1 (AMD).]
2.  In the case of escape from arrest, it is a defense that the arresting officer acted unlawfully in making the arrest. In all other cases, it is no defense that grounds existed for release from custody that could have been raised in a legal proceeding.  
[PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW).]
3.  As used in this section, "official custody" means arrest, custody in, or on the way to or from a courthouse or a jail, police station, house of correction, or any institution or facility under the control of the Department of Corrections, or under contract with the department for the housing of persons sentenced to imprisonment, the custody of any official of the department, the custody of any institution in another jurisdiction pursuant to a sentence imposed under the authority of section 2303, subsection 3 or any custody pursuant to court order. A person on a parole or probation status is not, for that reason alone, in "official custody" for purposes of this section.  
[PL 2019, c. 113, Pt. C, §63 (AMD).]
3-A.  The following provisions govern prosecution for escape.  
A. Prosecution for escape or attempted escape from any institution included in subsection 3 must be in the county in which the institution is located.   [PL 2001, c. 383, §95 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
B. Prosecution for escape or attempted escape of a person who has been transferred from one institution to another must be in the county in which the institution the person was either transferred from or transferred to is located.   [PL 2001, c. 383, §95 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
C. Prosecution for an escape or attempted escape for failure to return to official custody following temporary leave granted for a specific purpose or a limited period must be in the county in which the institution from which the leave was granted is located or in any county to which leave was granted.   [PL 2001, c. 383, §95 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
D. [PL 2013, c. 133, §7 (RP).]
E. Prosecution for escape or attempted escape from supervised community confinement must be in the county in which the institution from which the transfer to supervised community confinement was granted is located or in any county to which the transfer to supervised community confinement was granted.   [PL 2001, c. 383, §95 (NEW); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
F. Prosecution for escape or attempted escape from the community confinement monitoring program must be in the county in which the institution from which the transfer to the community confinement monitoring program was granted is located or in any county to which the transfer to the community confinement monitoring program was granted.   [PL 2011, c. 464, §16 (NEW).]
Notwithstanding other provisions of this section, in all cases of escape, prosecution may be in the county or division in which the person who has escaped was apprehended.  
[PL 2013, c. 133, §7 (AMD).]
4. 
[PL 2001, c. 383, §96 (RP); PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF).]
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 740, §§82,83 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 510, §§63,64 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 701, §§24-26 (AMD). PL 1981, c. 493, §3 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 210 (AMD). PL 1985, c. 821, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1991, c. 845, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 1993, c. 440, §§1,2 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §§90-96 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 383, §156 (AFF). PL 2001, c. 667, §D20 (AMD). PL 2001, c. 667, §D36 (AFF). PL 2003, c. 711, §§A5,6 (AMD). PL 2005, c. 63, §1 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 464, §§15, 16 (AMD). PL 2013, c. 133, §§6, 7 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 113, Pt. C, §§62, 63 (AMD). PL 2021, c. 260, §1 (AMD).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2021 · leading case: State v. Beauchene, 541 A.2d 914 (Me. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Beauchene, 541 A.2d 914 (Me. 1988). · cites it 8× “1 On October 4,1978, a Kenne-bec County grand jury indicted Beauchene for escape in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755. At the time of the indictment, Maine officials were not aware of Beau-chene’s whereabouts.”
State of Maine v. Tracy Dorweiler, 2016 ME 73 (Me. 2016). · cites it 3× “[¶ 1] Tracy Dorweiler appeals from a judgment of conviction for escape from arrest (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 755(1-D)(A) (2015), entered in the Unified Criminal Docket (Penobscot County, R.”
State of Maine v. David W. Troy, 2014 ME 9 (Me. 2014). · cites it 5× “This evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Troy “[left] official custody,” without official permission, for purposes of the escape conviction.”
State v. Tibbetts, 386 A.2d 736 (Me. 1978). · cites it 5× “Here, the indictment adequately informed defendant of the statute upon which the indictment was founded by alleging in almost the exact language of the statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755, that defendant “did without official permission, intentionally leave official custody.”
State v. Heald, 443 A.2d 954 (Me. 1982). · cites it 5× “After indictment for the offense of escape, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755 (1980), nine months later a jury in Superior Court (Cumberland County) found him guilty of that offense.”
State of Maine v. Philip Fleming, 2020 ME 120 (Me. 2020). “17-A M.R.S. § 755(3) (2020); see 17-A M.R.”
State v. Daley, 411 A.2d 410 (Me. 1980). · cites it 3× “After trial de novo in the Superior Court (Oxford County) on appeal from District Court convictions, a jury found defendant guilty of escape from arrest, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755, and two counts of terrorizing, id.”
State v. Flemming, 409 A.2d 220 (Me. 1979). · cites it 2× “Ultimately he was apprehended, returned to the State of Maine and, pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755, was tried on an indictment charging escape.”
State v. Griffin, 459 A.2d 1086 (Me. 1983). “§ 207 (1983), and escape, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755 (1983), all in a consolidated jury trial in the Superior Court (Hancock County).”
Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Jud. Court, 355 A.2d 341 (Me. 1976). · cites it 2× “17-A MRSA § 755, sub-§ 3, 2nd sentence, as enacted by PL 1975, c.”
State v. Hannon, 395 A.2d 118 (Me. 1978). · cites it 4× “Apprehended on July 13,1977, he was indicted on August 2, 1977, for the offense of escape, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755, in the Superior Court in Kennebec County.”
State v. Bishop, 392 A.2d 20 (Me. 1978). “First, noting that 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755 referred to in the first sentence of section 756 deals with escapes from official custody, defendant contends that “contraband” includes only those “things” which aid in escapes.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 755(1) — 8 cases
State of Maine v. David W. Troy, 2014 ME 9 (Me. 2014). “This evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Troy “[left] official custody,” without official permission, for purposes of the escape conviction.”
State v. Beauchene, 541 A.2d 914 (Me. 1988). “1 On October 4,1978, a Kenne-bec County grand jury indicted Beauchene for escape in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755. At the time of the indictment, Maine officials were not aware of Beau-chene’s whereabouts.”
State v. Tibbetts, 386 A.2d 736 (Me. 1978). “Here, the indictment adequately informed defendant of the statute upon which the indictment was founded by alleging in almost the exact language of the statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755, that defendant “did without official permission, intentionally leave official custody.”
State v. Lakin, 536 A.2d 1124 (Me. 1988).
State v. Bousman, 278 N.W.2d 15 (Iowa 1979).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 755(1)(A) — 2 cases
United States v. Small, 640 F.3d 425 (1st Cir. 2011).
State of Maine v. Mark Gessner, 2021 ME 41 (Me. 2021).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 755(1)(B) — 2 cases
State of Maine v. David W. Troy, 2014 ME 9 (Me. 2014). “This evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Troy “[left] official custody,” without official permission, for purposes of the escape conviction.”
State of Maine v. Mark Gessner, 2021 ME 41 (Me. 2021).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 755(2) — 9 cases
State of Maine v. Tracy Dorweiler, 2016 ME 73 (Me. 2016). “[¶ 1] Tracy Dorweiler appeals from a judgment of conviction for escape from arrest (Class D), 17-A M.R.S. § 755(1-D)(A) (2015), entered in the Unified Criminal Docket (Penobscot County, R.”
State v. Heald, 443 A.2d 954 (Me. 1982). “After indictment for the offense of escape, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755 (1980), nine months later a jury in Superior Court (Cumberland County) found him guilty of that offense.”
State v. Tibbetts, 386 A.2d 736 (Me. 1978). “Here, the indictment adequately informed defendant of the statute upon which the indictment was founded by alleging in almost the exact language of the statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755, that defendant “did without official permission, intentionally leave official custody.”
State v. Flemming, 409 A.2d 220 (Me. 1979). “Ultimately he was apprehended, returned to the State of Maine and, pursuant to 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755, was tried on an indictment charging escape.”
State v. Dyer, 371 A.2d 1086 (Me. 1977).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 755(3) — 6 cases
State of Maine v. Philip Fleming, 2020 ME 120 (Me. 2020). “17-A M.R.S. § 755(3) (2020); see 17-A M.R.”
State v. Beauchene, 541 A.2d 914 (Me. 1988). “1 On October 4,1978, a Kenne-bec County grand jury indicted Beauchene for escape in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755. At the time of the indictment, Maine officials were not aware of Beau-chene’s whereabouts.”
State v. Tibbetts, 386 A.2d 736 (Me. 1978). “Here, the indictment adequately informed defendant of the statute upon which the indictment was founded by alleging in almost the exact language of the statute, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 755, that defendant “did without official permission, intentionally leave official custody.”
State of Maine v. David W. Troy, 2014 ME 9 (Me. 2014). “This evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Troy “[left] official custody,” without official permission, for purposes of the escape conviction.”
State v. Nason, 433 A.2d 424 (Me. 1981).
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 755(4)(B) — 1 case
State v. Waugh, 451 A.2d 648 (Me. 1982).
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.