People v. Lovercamp
43 Cal.App.3d 823, 69 A.L.R. 3d 668, 118 Cal. Rptr. 110 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A limited defense of necessity is available to a prisoner charged with escape if the escape was to avoid a specific, immediate threat of death, forcible sexual attack, or substantial bodily injury, provided several strict conditions are met.
Facts:
- Marsha Lovercamp and her codefendant, Ms. Wynashe, were inmates at the California Rehabilitation Center.
- For approximately two and a half months, they were continuously threatened by a group of lesbian inmates who demanded they perform sexual acts, using the ultimatum 'fuck or fight.'
- Lovercamp and Wynashe complained to prison authorities several times about the threats, but no action was taken.
- On the day of their departure, a group of 10-15 of these inmates confronted them again with the same ultimatum, which resulted in a physical fight.
- Following the fight, the group threatened Lovercamp and Wynashe that they 'would see the group again,' causing the two women to fear for their lives.
- Believing they had no other choice to save themselves, Lovercamp and Wynashe left the institution.
- They were promptly captured in a hayfield a few yards away from the facility.
Procedural Posture:
- Marsha Lovercamp and her codefendant were charged with escape from the California Rehabilitation Center in a California trial court.
- At trial, the defendants made an offer of proof to present evidence that they escaped due to immediate threats of sexual assault, intending to argue the defense of necessity.
- The trial court rejected the offer of proof, preventing the defendants from presenting this evidence to the jury.
- The defendants then offered no evidence and were subsequently convicted by the jury.
- Lovercamp, as appellant, appealed her conviction to the California Court of Appeal, arguing the trial court erred in refusing her offer of proof.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the defense of necessity apply to a charge of prison escape when an inmate escapes to avoid an immediate threat of forcible sexual assault after their repeated complaints to authorities were ignored?
Opinions:
Majority - Gardner, P. J.
Yes. The defense of necessity is available in a prison escape prosecution if specific, limited conditions are met. While courts have historically held that intolerable prison conditions do not justify escape, a humane society must give some attention to the individual's dilemma when faced with immediate, serious harm. The court balances the public interest in secure facilities against the individual's right to safety. It rejects prior, more rigid precedents and establishes a strict, five-part test to determine when the defense is viable. The defense is only available when the escapee is faced with a specific, immediate threat, has no time to complain to authorities or has a history of futile complaints, has no opportunity to resort to the courts, uses no force in the escape, and immediately reports to authorities once they have reached a position of safety. Because the defendants' offer of proof was sufficient to potentially establish these elements, the trial court erred by preventing the jury from considering this defense.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the Lovercamp test, which formally recognized a limited necessity defense to prison escape in California. It departed from the traditional, strict liability approach where the reasons for escape were largely irrelevant. The decision creates a specific, multi-part framework that balances the state's interest in maintaining custody against an inmate's fundamental right to be free from imminent, serious bodily harm or sexual assault. This precedent forces courts to consider the specific circumstances of an escape and provides a narrow but critical legal defense for inmates who act as a last resort to save themselves, while carefully limiting the defense to prevent abuse.
