Opinion ID: 561286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Evidence Supporting Taylor's Conviction for Escape

Text: 5 A conviction for escape under Sec. 751(a) requires proof of three elements. The Government must show that the defendant made 1) an unauthorized departure or escape, 2) from custody of an institution where the prisoner is confined by direction of the Attorney General, 3) where the custody or confinement is by virtue either of arrest for a felony or conviction of any offense. United States v. Harper, 901 F.2d 471, 473 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Spletzer, 535 F.2d 950, 953 (5th Cir.1976). Section 751(a) does not require that a defendant have a specific intent to escape; all the prosecution must show is that the defendant knew that his actions would result in his absence from confinement without permission. United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 100 S.Ct. 624, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980). 2 In Spletzer, however, this Court held that because both the indictment and the jury instructions in that case treated a specific intent to escape as an element of the crime, under the doctrine of the law of the case specific intent became an element of the crime for Spletzer. 535 F.2d at 954. The same rule obtains here. Taylor was indicted for willfully escaping federal custody, and the district court instructed the jury, without objection, that specific intent was an element of the crime. Thus, as in Spletzer, the Government had to prove that Taylor acted with a specific intent to avoid further confinement. 6 Taylor contends that the evidence was not sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that he had such an intent. To prevail on such an argument Taylor must overcome a high hurdle: this Court must affirm the jury's verdict if, considering all of the evidence before the jury in the light most favorable to the Government, the jury could rationally have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); United States v. Hopkins, 916 F.2d 207, 212 (5th Cir.1990). Having reviewed all of the evidence before the jury, this Court cannot say that the jury could not rationally have concluded that Taylor knew what he was doing when he left New Directions, and that he left with an intent to avoid further confinement there. 7 The Government introduced into evidence a document called an acknowledgment of custody which Taylor had signed upon arriving at New Directions. By that document, Taylor acknowledged that he understood that 8 federal inmates residing at New Directions Club, Inc., are in the custody of the Attorney General of the United States. Inmates who leave the New Directions facility without permission from the Federal Program Manager, or his authorized representative, shall be deemed an escapee from the custody of the Attorney General. I also understand that federal inmates who leave their place of employment (or training) without permission from the Federal Program Manager, or his authorized representative, or who fail to return to New Directions within the time prescribed, shall be deemed an escapee from the custody of the Attorney General of the United States. 9 The Government also showed that Taylor left the New Directions facility without authorization on October 28, 1988, and did not return. Taken together, the jury could rationally have found that these facts established each of the elements of the crime of escape. They show that Taylor 1) made an unauthorized departure 2) from a facility where he was confined at the direction of the Attorney General, 3) which confinement was the result of his conviction for altering a money order. Further, the evidence produced by the Government--particularly Taylor's acknowledgment of custody and the fact that he did not return to New Directions--allowed the jury to infer that Taylor knew he was not free to leave, and that he left with an intent to avoid confinement at New Directions. 10 Although Taylor argued that his early departure was the result of an honest mistake--he contended that he thought that he was entitled to twenty additional days off for good time--the jury was not required to accept Taylor's explanation. Without question, the evidence as to Taylor's state of mind was in conflict. It is precisely this sort of conflict, however, that the jury is called upon to resolve. See United States v. Merkt, 764 F.2d 266, 272 (5th Cir.1985) (intent is a question of fact that the jury must determine under the totality of the circumstances and after evaluating all of the evidence). This Court should not and cannot invade the function of the jury. Taylor's conviction must stand.