United States v. Russell Gene Kelley

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Russell Gene Kelley

546 F.2d 42, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10334

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 1977

Docket75-3907

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 546 F.2d 42 (United States v. Russell Gene Kelley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Russell Gene Kelley, 546 F.2d 42, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10334 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Russell Gene Kelley appeals his conviction for escaping from a federal “halfway house.” See 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Kelley concededly failed to return from a weekend furlough, remaining at large for eighteen unauthorized days until the time of his arrest. He claims that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on his defense of coercion. Kelley’s requested instruction acknowledged, however, that the coercion defense would be applicable only if the coercing facts induced Kelley to fear impending death or serious bodily injury to himself or to his family. Here the coercing facts consisted solely of Kelley’s concern for his deteriorating family situation, and there was no evidence from which the jury could have found that Kelley feared impending death or serious bodily injury. The court therefore did not err in refusing to give Kelley’s requested instruction.

Kelley’s coercion request did, however, highlight the necessity to instruct the jury properly with respect to the intent required under § 751. The court instructed the jury as follows:

Knowingly is to be aware or to do an act or to accomplish an intended result or goal with knowledge, wilfully and intentionally. An act is done wilfully and knowingly if done with knowledge and specific intent.

*43 Specific intent as the term implies means more than a general intent to commit the act. To establish specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the Government must prove that a Defendant knowingly did an act that the law forbids or knowingly failed to do an act which the law requires, purposely intending to violate the law. Such intent may be determined as I have said by direct and circumstantial evidence from all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.

This instruction was adequate.

We have examined Kelley’s remaining contentions and find them without merit.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Russell Gene Kelley appeals his conviction for escaping from a federal “halfway house.” See 18 U.S.C. § 751(a). Kelley concededly failed to return from a weekend furlough, remaining at large for eighteen unauthorized days until the time of his arrest. He claims that the trial court erred when it refused to instruct the jury on his defense of coercion. Kelley’s requested instruction acknowledged, however, that the coercion defense would be applicable only if the coercing facts induced Kelley to fear impending death or serious bodily injury to himself or to his family. Here the coercing facts consisted solely of Kelley’s concern for his deteriorating family situation, and there was no evidence from which the jury could have found that Kelley feared impending death or serious bodily injury. The court therefore did not err in refusing to give Kelley’s requested instruction.

Kelley’s coercion request did, however, highlight the necessity to instruct the jury properly with respect to the intent required under § 751. The court instructed the jury as follows:

Knowingly is to be aware or to do an act or to accomplish an intended result or goal with knowledge, wilfully and intentionally. An act is done wilfully and knowingly if done with knowledge and specific intent.

*43 Specific intent as the term implies means more than a general intent to commit the act. To establish specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt, the Government must prove that a Defendant knowingly did an act that the law forbids or knowingly failed to do an act which the law requires, purposely intending to violate the law. Such intent may be determined as I have said by direct and circumstantial evidence from all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.

This instruction was adequate.

We have examined Kelley’s remaining contentions and find them without merit.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 F.2d 42, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 10334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-russell-gene-kelley-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack