AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was enrolled in a community custody release program as a condition for his release from jail during a separate criminal proceeding. He was placed under electronic monitoring and required to reside at a specific residence. After an affair with the homeowner's wife led to a physical altercation, the Defendant fled the residence, violating the terms of his release. He did not return, and after several days, he contacted the program officer but did not surrender. He was arrested thirty-four days after fleeing and was subsequently convicted of escape from a community custody release program (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that willfulness is an essential element of escape from a community custody release program and that he was entitled to a duress instruction due to the circumstances that led to his escape (para 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that willfulness is not an element of the charged offense and that escape from a community custody release program is a continuing offense, negating the Defendant's entitlement to a duress instruction (paras 6, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether willfulness is an essential element of escape from a community custody release program.
• Whether the Defendant was entitled to a duress instruction as an affirmative defense to escape from a community custody release program.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the conviction, holding that willfulness is not an element of the charged offense and that the Defendant was not entitled to a duress instruction (para 24).

Reasons

• The court, led by Chief Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Shammara H. Henderson and Jane B. Yohalem concurring, reasoned that the statutory language of Section 30-22-8.1 does not include willfulness as an element of escape from a community custody release program. The court also determined that escape from such a program is a continuing offense, and any claimed duress did not have a coercive effect throughout the entire period the Defendant was at large. Therefore, the Defendant was not entitled to a duress instruction. The court's analysis was grounded in statutory interpretation and established legal principles regarding the elements of offenses and the nature of escape as a continuing offense (paras 6-23).