United States v. Stephen Thomas Uthe

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Stephen Thomas Uthe

686 F.2d 636, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16484

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedAugust 19, 1982

Docket82-1474

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 686 F.2d 636 (United States v. Stephen Thomas Uthe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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. Stephen Thomas Uthe, 686 F.2d 636, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16484 (8th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Stephen Thomas Uthe appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 1 sitting without a jury, finding him guilty of escaping from the custody of an institutional officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), and sentencing him to one year and one day imprisonment. The district court also ordered that the sentence run consecutively to two state sentences that appellant is currently serving.

Neither party disputes the fact that appellant was in the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to a subpoena issued under the laws of the United States, nor that appellant willfully escaped. In justification of his escape, however, appellant argues the *637 defense of duress or necessity and relies upon United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 100 S.Ct. 624, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980). In Bailey the Court stated:

P]n order to be entitled to an instruction on duress or necessity as a defense to the crime charged, an escapee must first of- - fer evidence justifying his continued absence from custody as well as his initial departure and that an indispensable element of such offer is testimony of a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody as soon as the claimed duress or necessity had lost its coercive force.

Id. at 412-13, 100 S.Ct. at 635-36 (footnote omitted). Moreover, the Court also stated: “Under any definition of these defenses, one principle remains constant: if there was a reasonable, legal alternative to violating'the law, ‘a chance both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm,’ the defenses will fail.” Id. at 410, 100 S.Ct. at 634, citing W. La-Fave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law 379 (1972).

Granted appellant testified that the man in the Iowa State Men’s Reformatory at Anamosa, Iowa, knew he was an informant and referred to him as “snitch,” “rat,” “FBI,” and “BCI.” But even appellant testified that he had not told anyone at the Story County Jail at Nevada, Iowa, of fears for his well-being. Likewise, appellant testified that after he escaped he realized the escape was ridiculous and that he willingly surrendered himself to law enforcement officials. The district court, however, found that appellant was caught and that he did not surrender. Thus, the district court considered both elements of appellant’s Bailey defense and rejected them, finding that appellant had other legal, reasonable alternatives to the escape.

From review of the record and the briefs, we find that the district court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Stephen Thomas Uthe appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, 1 sitting without a jury, finding him guilty of escaping from the custody of an institutional officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), and sentencing him to one year and one day imprisonment. The district court also ordered that the sentence run consecutively to two state sentences that appellant is currently serving.

Neither party disputes the fact that appellant was in the custody of the Attorney General pursuant to a subpoena issued under the laws of the United States, nor that appellant willfully escaped. In justification of his escape, however, appellant argues the *637 defense of duress or necessity and relies upon United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 100 S.Ct. 624, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980). In Bailey the Court stated:

P]n order to be entitled to an instruction on duress or necessity as a defense to the crime charged, an escapee must first of- - fer evidence justifying his continued absence from custody as well as his initial departure and that an indispensable element of such offer is testimony of a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody as soon as the claimed duress or necessity had lost its coercive force.

Id. at 412-13, 100 S.Ct. at 635-36 (footnote omitted). Moreover, the Court also stated: “Under any definition of these defenses, one principle remains constant: if there was a reasonable, legal alternative to violating'the law, ‘a chance both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm,’ the defenses will fail.” Id. at 410, 100 S.Ct. at 634, citing W. La-Fave & A. Scott, Handbook on Criminal Law 379 (1972).

Granted appellant testified that the man in the Iowa State Men’s Reformatory at Anamosa, Iowa, knew he was an informant and referred to him as “snitch,” “rat,” “FBI,” and “BCI.” But even appellant testified that he had not told anyone at the Story County Jail at Nevada, Iowa, of fears for his well-being. Likewise, appellant testified that after he escaped he realized the escape was ridiculous and that he willingly surrendered himself to law enforcement officials. The district court, however, found that appellant was caught and that he did not surrender. Thus, the district court considered both elements of appellant’s Bailey defense and rejected them, finding that appellant had other legal, reasonable alternatives to the escape.

From review of the record and the briefs, we find that the district court’s finding is not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

686 F.2d 636, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 16484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-stephen-thomas-uthe-ca8-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack