Branson v. State

Decision Date23 July 1975
Docket NumberNo. 50211,50211
Citation525 S.W.2d 187
PartiesRichard Lee BRANSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtTexas Court of Criminal Appeals

G. Brockett Irwin, Longview, for appellant.

Donald R. Ross, County Atty. and David P. Brown, Asst. County Atty., Henderson, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty. and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DAVIS, Commissioner.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for escape from custody as denounced by V.T C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 38.07. The jury assessed punishment at two years.

The record reflects that appellant escaped from the Rusk County Jail on July 28, 1974, where he was in custody following four felony convictions in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Rusk County.

Appellant contends that the court erred in refusing to grant his requested charge that it is a defense to the prosecution that the conduct in question is justified or that such conduct is justified if the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm.

Appellant recognizes that this is a case of first impression in Texas, but urges that he was justified in escaping from the Rusk County Jail to seek aid by counsel and in gaining relief from sordid jail conditions.

Appellant points to V.T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 9.02, which provides, 'It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter.' Appellant does not cite the Section in such chapter upon which he relies. We have reviewed Chapter 9 of the new Penal Code entitled, 'Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility,' and conclude that it does not support appellant's contention that evidence that appellant left jail to seek aid from legal counsel and get relief from sordid jail conditions entitled him to his requested charge.

While the common law appears to have recognized that there was a possible defense to the crime of escape, a review of numerous cases furnishes no support to appellant's contention. The Court of Appeal for the Fourth District of California in the case of People v. Lovercamp, 43 Cal.App.3d 823, 118 Cal.Rptr. 110 (1974) stated:

'In 1 Hale P.C. 611 (1736), it was written that if a prisoner caught fire and a prisoner departed to save his life the necessity to save his life 'excuseth the felony.' So, too, we may assume that a prisoner with his back to the wall, facing a gang of fellow-inmates approaching him with drawn knives, who are making it very clear that they intend to kill him, might be expected to go over the wall rather than remain and be a martyr to the principle of prison discipline.'

Numerous cases from other jurisdictions have held that intolerable living conditions in prison afforded no justification for escape. State v. Davis, 14 Neb. 439; Hinkle v. Commonwealth, 23 Ky.L.Rpt. 1988, 66 S.W. 816; Johnson v. State, 122 Ga. 172, 50 S.E. 65; State v. Cahill, 196 Iowa 486, 194 N.W. 191; State v. Palmer, 45 Del. 308, 72 A.2d 442.

We reject appellant's contention that the court erred in refusing to grant his requested charge on justification.

Appellant contends that the court erred when it ordered that the punishment assessed by the jury in the instant case would begin when the sentence on a preceding conviction (Cause No. 18,229, in which...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Jewell v. State, s. 58315-58321
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • November 29, 1978
    ...prosecution. 1 See Morales v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 416 S.W.2d 403; Christopher v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 489 S.W.2d 573; Branson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 525 S.W.2d 187. At the outset, we note that Article 36.27, V.A.C.C.P., requires the trial court to "first submit the question and also submit h......
  • Thiel v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • September 26, 1984
    ...Penal Code, Section 9.22, this Court has yet to expressly discuss how it might apply to the offense of escape. Cf. Branson v. State, 525 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). Today, however, this Court has the opportunity to discuss the statutory defense of necessity as it might relate to the offen......
  • Fitzgerald v. State
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 17, 1990
    ...escape may be justified, but "to seek aid from legal counsel and get relief from sordid jail conditions" are not among them. Branson v. State, 525 S.W.2d 187 (1975); see Acosta v. State, 660 S.W.2d 611, at 614 (Tex.App.--Corpus Christi 1983), no PDR history (evidence of bleeding ulcer faile......
  • Ex parte Huerta
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 30, 1985
    ...Rodriquez v. State, 552 S.W.2d 451 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Hester v. State, 544 S.W.2d 129 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Branson v. State, 525 S.W.2d 187 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Banks v. State, 503 S.W.2d 582, 583 While it is better practice for the formal sentence to reflect whether the sentence is to run conc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT