State v. Reese

Supreme Court of Iowa
272 N.W.2d 863 (1978)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The affirmative defense of necessity is available for a prison escape charge, but only if the defendant produces evidence to support a finding that they: (1) faced a specific, immediate threat of serious harm; (2) had no time for complaints to authorities or a history of futile complaints; (3) had no opportunity to resort to courts; (4) used no force or violence in the escape; and (5) immediately reported to authorities upon reaching a position of safety.

Facts:

Michael W. Reese was an inmate at the Iowa State Penitentiary.
Another inmate, identified as 'the lifer,' threatened to kill Reese after Reese attempted to disrupt the lifer's scheme of exchanging protection for homosexual liaisons.
Reese reported the threats to his counselor and the penitentiary psychiatrist but received no help.
On March 26, 1977, the lifer renewed his threats and carried out a homosexual attack on Reese.
On March 29, 1977, Reese escaped from the penitentiary without permission.
Reese was apprehended by authorities over 24 hours later while hiding in a shed on a farm approximately eight miles from the prison.
At the time of his apprehension, Reese had made no attempt to turn himself in to any authorities.

Procedural Posture:

Michael W. Reese was charged with escape in the Iowa district court (trial court).
At trial, Reese requested a jury instruction on the defense of necessity, which the court overruled.
The jury convicted Reese, and the trial court entered a judgment of conviction.
Reese (as appellant) appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's conviction, holding that the necessity defense instruction should have been given.
The State sought, and the Supreme Court of Iowa (highest state court) granted, further review of the Court of Appeals' decision.

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 excuse a prisoner from an escape charge under Iowa law if the prisoner, after escaping an immediate threat of serious bodily harm, fails to immediately report to the proper authorities upon reaching a position of safety?

Opinions:

Majority - McGiverin, Justice

No. The defense of necessity to a prison escape charge is extremely limited and requires the defendant to satisfy a strict, five-part test, which includes the requirement that the prisoner immediately report to authorities upon reaching a position of safety. The court formally recognizes the necessity defense for escape but adopts the five conditions established in People v. Lovercamp. These conditions are prerequisites for the defense to be submitted to a jury, not merely factors affecting credibility. While Reese may have presented sufficient evidence for the first four conditions (immediate threat, futile complaints, no time for courts, no violence), his failure to meet the fifth condition is dispositive. Reese did not turn himself in after his escape; instead, he was found hiding 24 hours later. Because he failed to immediately report to authorities upon reaching a position of safety, he was not entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of necessity.

Dissenting - McCormick, Justice

Yes. The defense of necessity should have been submitted to the jury because the majority's rigid, five-part test is unrealistic and inconsistent with the common law defense. The conditions from People v. Lovercamp should be treated as factors for the jury to weigh in assessing the defendant's credibility, not as absolute prerequisites that bar the defense. Requiring a prisoner who justifiably fled for his life to immediately turn himself in, potentially to be returned to the very danger he fled, is unreasonable. This rigid rule also improperly enlarges the crime of escape by punishing conduct (failing to return) that occurs after the unauthorized departure is complete. The jury should have been trusted to evaluate Reese's testimony and decide if his actions were justified under the circumstances.

Analysis:

This decision establishes a very narrow necessity defense for prison escape in Iowa by adopting the restrictive five-part test from People v. Lovercamp. By treating these five conditions as mandatory prerequisites, the court prioritizes prison security and order over a more flexible, jury-focused determination of justification. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for a defendant to raise a necessity defense in an escape case, as failure to satisfy even one condition, particularly the duty to promptly surrender, will prevent the defense from ever reaching the jury. The decision creates a high bar for defendants and signals a judicial preference for bright-line rules over discretionary, fact-intensive inquiries in this context.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Reese (1978)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"