cdTOCtest

ESCAPEESCAPEESCAPEESCAPEESCAPE

I. INTRODUCTION

Under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5a, an individual commits a
crime if without lawful authority he removes himself
from official detention or fails to return to official
detention following temporary leave granted for a specific
purpose or limited period. See also N.J.S.A. 2C:29-6
(implements for escape) and N.J.S.A. 2C:29-7 (bail
jumping).

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5c bars public servants from
knowingly or recklessly permitting an escape, and any
person who knowingly causes or facilitates an escape is
guilty of an offense. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5b provides that any
person on parole who hides or leaves the State with the
purpose to avoid supervision is guilty of an offense.
Abandoning a place of residence without any notice to
the parole authorities is prima facie evidence that the
person intended to avoid supervision.

II. OFFICIAL DETENTION (N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5a)

N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5a provides that “official detention”
means arrest, detention in any facility for custody for
persons under a charge or conviction of a crime or offense,
alleged or found to be delinquent, detention for
extradition or deportation, or any other detention for law
enforcement purposes.

1. A crime or offense includes a defendant under
   arrest for a disorderly persons offense. State v. Frost, 95
   N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div. 1967); N.J.S.A. 2C:1-4.


2. Detention includes participation in a work release
   program where a defendant has failed to return to the
   institution where he was confined. State v. Walker, 131
   N.J. Super. 547 (App. Div. 1974). See also N.J.S.A. 30:8-
   1 et seq. (escape from outdoor labor or vocational training
   program).


3. Persons committed both as unfit to stand trial
   (2C:4-6) and as not guilty by reason of insanity (2C:4-
   8), are subject to the penalties for escape if they abscond
   from the institution in which they are being held. See
   State v. Moore, 192 N.J. Super. 437 (App. Div. 1983),
   certif. denied, 96 N.J. 271 (1984)(one convicted of
   escaping from a mental institution must receive a
   criminal sanction, not a new indeterminate civil
   commitment).

III. ABSCONDING FROM PAROLE (N.J.S.A.

2C:29-5b)

This offense requires proof that the defendant, with

purpose to avoid parole supervision, has either left the

state or gone into hiding. See State v. Black, 153 N.J. 438,

453 (1998). The critical elements of absconding from

parole are the act of going into hiding or leaving the state

for the purpose of avoiding parole supervision. State v.

Eisenman, 153 N.J. 462, (1998); State v. Graham, 284

N.J. Super. 413 (App. Div. 1995), certif. denied, 144 N.J.

378 (1996)(to prove hiding State must present more

than evidence that a defendant simply changed his

residence); Compare State v. Eisenman, 153 N.J. 462,

470-471 (1998)(plea taken from the defendant by the

trial court was barely sufficient to establish a violation of

this subsection).

Absconding while on work release status constitutes

escape under pre-Code law. State v. Walker, 131 N.J.

Super. 547 (App. Div. 1974). Escape from pre-parole

home confinement also constitutes escape, State v. Kyc,

261 N.J. Super. 104 (App. Div. 1992), certif. denied, 133

N.J. 436 (1993), as does absconding from the Intensive

Supervision Program (“ISP”). See State v. Clay, 230 N.J.

Super. 509 (App. Div. 1989), aff’d o.b. 118 N.J. Super.

251 (1990); but see State v. Kline, 277 N.J. Super. 623

(Law Div. 1994) (holding that an escape charge under

subsection b may not be brought against a person who

absconded from ISP before the date that provision was

amended to include ISP).

IV. EXCLUSIONS

Running away from a juvenile shelter or facility,

where defendant was placed for his own protection, does

not constitute escape under N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5. State v.

Interest of M.S., 73 N.J. 283 (1977). However, the

section does apply to the unauthorized departure from

custody of a juvenile delinquent. N.J.S.A. 2C:29-5a.

Departure from a drug treatment facility, where the

defendant was required to live as a condition of probation,

does not qualify as an escape. See State v. Smeen, 147 N.J.

Super. 229 (App. Div. 1977), certif. denied, 74 N.J. 263

(1977); but see State v. Graham, 284 N.J. Super. 413

(App. Div. 1995) (defendant not only left the drug

rehabilitation program to which he had been paroled but

also deliberately evaded parole officials for the next six

months which served as an adequate foundation for the

grand jury to infer that defendant concealed himself for