PEOPLE V. UNGER
362 N.E.2d 319 (1977)
NATURE OF THE CASE: People (P) appealed the judgment of the Appellate Court, which found that the giving of P's jury instruction, which disregarded Unger's (D) reason for D's escape in a criminal trial against D, was reversible error.
FACTS: D was confined at the Illinois State Penitentiary in Joliet, Illinois. D was serving a one- to three-year term as a consequence of a conviction for auto theft in Ogle County. D was transferred to the prison's minimum security, honor farm. On March 7, 1972, D walked off the honor farm. D was apprehended two days later in a motel room in St. Charles, Illinois. D testified that prior to his transfer to the honor farm he had been threatened by a fellow inmate with a six-inch knife in an attempt to force defendant to engage in homosexual activities. Defendant was 22 years old and weighed approximately 155 pounds. D did not report the incident for fear of retaliation. D testified that he is not a particularly good fighter. After his transfer to the honor farm D claimed he was assaulted and sexually molested by three inmates, and he named the assailants at trial. D claims he received additional threats from inmates he did not know. On the date of the escape, D testified that he received a call on an institution telephone. D was threatened with death because the caller had heard that D had reported the assault to prison authorities. D left the honor farm to save his life and that he planned to return once he found someone who could help him. None of these incidents were reported to the prison officials. D was apprehended two days later still dressed in his prison clothes. P introduced prior statements which cast doubt on his true reasons for leaving the prison farm where D indicated that he was motivated by a desire for publicity concerning the sentence on his original conviction, which he deemed to be unfair, as well as fear of physical abuse and death. The first trial resulted in a hung jury. D was convicted on the second trial. The jury instruction stated, 'The reasons, if any, given for the alleged escape are immaterial and not to be considered by you as in any way justifying or excusing, if there were in fact such reasons.' The appellate court found this reversible error because it failed to allow D's defense of the choice of evils. P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment