Huffman v. State
| Decision Date | 21 December 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 32A01-9503-CR-64,32A01-9503-CR-64 |
| Parties | James S. HUFFMAN, Appellant-Defendant Below, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff Below. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James S. Huffman appeals his conviction, after a jury trial, of Escape. Huffman raises two issues which we consolidate for review. We affirm.
The facts in the light most favorable to the verdict reveal that Huffman was incarcerated in the Indiana Boys' School. On January 1, 1994, Huffman and five other detainees left their cottage by breaking a lock off of a door, forcing open a second door, and removing a board covering a window. The six boys fled from their cottage and crossed a field. Huffman hid in a wooded area until he was caught. Huffman never left the Boys' School property.
Huffman was tried as an adult. At trial, he admitted that he had intended to leave the grounds of the Boys' School.
Huffman asserts 1) that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for a directed verdict, and 2) that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction. Huffman bases both assertions on the argument that he could not properly be convicted of Escape because he had not made it off the Boys' School property. We have combined these issues into a single issue because we perceive the appellate claim in each to be an attack upon the sufficiency of the evidence. See Jordan v. State (1995), Ind., 656 N.E.2d 816, footnote 1.
The present case presents an issue of first impression in Indiana. However, we are aided by an annotation, Conviction For Escape Where Prisoner Fails To Leave Confines of Prison or Institution, 79 ALR4th 1060. This annotation reveals that our sister states have almost universally upheld Escape convictions where the prisoner did not make it outside the prison or detention facility where the states' statutes involved proscribed "escape from 'custody', 'confinement,' or the like" (as opposed to statutes which proscribed "escape from 'prison', 'detention facility,' or the like") and the prisoner exhibited an intention to leave the confines of the prison or institution. Id. at 1063-1067; Crowder v. State (1991), Tex.App., 812 S.W.2d 63 (), review refused; State v. Marsh (1957), 233 La. 388, 96 So.2d 643 (); Urbauer v. State (1987), Okla.Crim.App., 744 P.2d 1274 (); Scott v. State (1984), Tex.Cr.App., 672 S.W.2d 465 (); State v. Sugden (1988), 143 Wis.2d 728, 422 N.W.2d 624 (); contra State v. Gaines (1978), La., 372 So.2d 552 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moore
...material in a restricted area and had in his possession a pair of shorts that had been dyed black); see also Huffman v. State, 659 N.E.2d 214, 215 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (boy in the custody of the Boys' School committed escape where he broke out of his cottage and was found outside, later admitt......
-
State v. Germonto
...presents a myriad of case law that directly supports my interpretation of section 76-8-309. Among these cases, I find Huffman v. State, 659 N.E.2d 214 (Ind.Ct.App.1995),5 to be particularly instructive. In Huffman, the defendant was a prisoner who had left his dormitory without authorizatio......
-
Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
... ... When a person makes an eighty-mile-per-day commute consisting of city streets, county roads and state highways, she gives up 90-120 minutes each day (not counting traffic jams and road construction) that she could have spent doing something other than ... ...