State v. Culp
900 S.W.2d 707, 1994 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 858 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The statutory defense of necessity in Tennessee escape cases requires that the person reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm, that avoiding the harm outweighs the harm prevented by the law, and incorporates specific elements from the California 'Lovercamp' test related to the impossibility of seeking official help and promptly reporting to authorities upon reaching safety.
Facts:
- The appellant was convicted for the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance in Lauderdale County on October 21, 1992.
- Immediately after his conviction, while being escorted from the courthouse, the appellant walked away from the custody of a deputy sheriff.
- Later that evening, the Lauderdale County Sheriff's Department received information leading to the appellant's location in Brownsville, Tennessee.
- An investigator from the Haywood County Sheriff's Department located the appellant, who fled and was apprehended after a short chase.
- The appellant intended to argue that he escaped because he feared for his life in the Lauderdale County Jail.
- As part of his intended defense, the appellant sought to introduce evidence of various acts of abuse and threats against himself and his girlfriend by law enforcement personnel and inmates in Lauderdale County, occurring between September 1992 and February 1993.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was initially tried and convicted for the sale of a Schedule II controlled substance in the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County on October 21, 1992.
- On February 1, 1993, the Lauderdale County Grand Jury indicted the appellant on one count of felony escape.
- On September 17, 1993, the appellant was tried by a jury and convicted for felony escape in the Circuit Court.
- Prior to testifying before the jury, the appellant made an offer of proof wherein he testified concerning evidence related to his proposed duress (later clarified as necessity) defense.
- The trial court held that all such evidence was irrelevant and therefore inadmissible, basing its decision on the 'Lovercamp' test as adopted in State v. Oliver.
- The appellant appealed his conviction for felony escape to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by excluding evidence presented by the appellant to establish the defense of necessity in a felony escape case, given the statutory definition of necessity and the continued applicability of certain elements from the 'Lovercamp' test?
Opinions:
Majority - Hayes, Judge
Yes, the trial court erred by excluding evidence relevant to the defense of necessity in the appellant's felony escape case. The court first clarified that while the defense was referred to as 'duress,' the statutory defense of 'necessity' (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-609) was the correct framework, as common law defenses were abolished by the 1989 Criminal Code. The court then examined the five-part 'Lovercamp' test, previously adopted by Tennessee in an unreported case, for establishing necessity in escape cases. It concluded that only the second and fifth elements of the 'Lovercamp' test—requiring that there was no time for official complaint (or a history of futile complaints) and that the prisoner immediately reported to authorities upon reaching safety—are still viable under Tennessee's statutory definition of necessity. These two elements are logical extensions of the statutory requirement that the conduct be 'immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm.' The remaining 'Lovercamp' factors, while persuasive for policy, could not be adopted because doing so would exceed the legislature's prerogative to define criminal laws and defenses. The court determined that the appellant's proffered evidence tended to establish several elements of this refined necessity defense, making it relevant and therefore admissible. The trial court's conclusion that there was no imminent danger due to a change in sheriffs was deemed a question of fact for the jury, not the court. The exclusion of this relevant evidence deprived the appellant of a fundamental right to present a defense, necessitating a reversal and remand for a new trial where the evidence must be admitted.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the applicability and elements of the statutory defense of necessity in Tennessee, particularly in the context of felony escape. By partially adopting the 'Lovercamp' test and integrating it with statutory language, the court provides a structured framework for trial courts to evaluate evidence for this defense. The ruling emphasizes the separation of powers, underscoring that courts cannot add or subtract from statutory defense elements, thus reinforcing legislative authority in defining criminal law. It also reinforces the fundamental due process right to present a defense, ensuring that relevant evidence is heard by a jury, which will likely impact how trial courts handle offers of proof for necessity defenses in escape cases moving forward.
