2015 ORS 162.155¹
Escape in the second degree

(1) A person commits the crime of escape in the second degree if:

(a) The person uses or threatens to use physical force escaping from custody; or

(b) Having been convicted or found guilty of a felony, the person escapes from custody imposed as a result thereof; or

(c) The person escapes from a correctional facility; or

(d) While under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board or under the jurisdiction of the Oregon Health Authority under ORS 161.315 (Right of state to obtain mental examination of defendant) to 161.351 (Discharge by agency), the person departs, is absent from or fails to return to this state without authorization of the board.

(2) Escape in the second degree is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §191; 1983 c.800 §13; 1985 c.192 §1; 2011 c.708 §22]

Notes of Decisions

The facts warranted submission to the jury the ques­tion whether defendant "escaped" within the meaning of this pro­vi­sion and a related pro­vi­sion, ORS 162.135 (Definitions for ORS 162.135 to 162.205), and not only a charge of at­tempt to escape, where defendant broke away and ran from a guard in courthouse parking lot and was caught only mo­ments later, having never been more than 20 steps ahead of the guard. State v. Fitzgerald, 16 Or App 376, 518 P2d 678 (1974), Sup Ct review denied

The State of Oregon had no jurisdic­tion over the Indian defendant for an escape which occurred solely and entirely upon the Warm Springs Reserva­tion. State v. Smith, 277 Or 251, 560 P2d 1066 (1977)

Where defendant who escaped from confine­ment in work camp located in Tillamook County, was charged with escape under this sec­tion, venue was proper only in that county so prosecuting defendant in Marion County, where he had been confined prior to transfer, was improper. State v. Dillenburg, 49 Or App 911, 621 P2d 1193 (1980)

Custody is "result" of con­vic­­tion or finding of guilt if per­son has been placed in actual or constructive restraint of police of­fi­cer, and not within correc­tional facility, following finding of guilt and remand to custody of of­fi­cer or agency or following judg­ment of con­vic­­tion and order of commit­ment to correc­tional facility. State v. Palaia, 289 Or 463, 614 P2d 1120 (1980)

Program from which defendant escaped qualified as "work release program" and defendant was in constructive custody of Multnomah County jail, a correc­tional facility. State v. Scott, 94 Or App 250, 764 P2d 976 (1988)

Defendant was guilty of escape in sec­ond de­gree when defendant failed to comply with terms of inmate furlough program including require­ments that defendant return to sister's home each evening and maintain phone contact with sheriff's depart­ment. State v. Sasser, 104 Or App 251, 799 P2d 1146 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant was in custody at time jury rendered guilty verdict and court received verdict, custody status of defendant was result of guilty verdict even though court did not expressly remand defendant. State v. McCauley, 119 Or App 384, 851 P2d 608 (1993), Sup Ct review denied

Where home deten­tion qualified as condi­tional release, failure to comply with terms was not escape. State v. Wilde, 123 Or App 493, 862 P2d 105 (1993)

Unauthorized departure from court-ordered home deten­tion constituted escape from correc­tional facility. State v. Esmond, 125 Or App 613, 866 P2d 494 (1994)

Where defendant escaping from outside site was under uninterrupted supervision of correc­tional facility employee, escape was from constructive confine­ment in correc­tional facility rather than from custody. State v. Croghan, 162 Or App 251, 986 P2d 579 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

"Escaping from custody" means that per­son subject to actual or constructive restraint or control by peace of­fi­cer sets out on course of ac­tion that results, even mo­mentarily, in per­son no longer being within of­fi­cer's restraint or control. State v. Metcalfe, 172 Or App 501, 19 P3d 374 (2001)

Where deputy sheriff was present in courtroom, order reducing defendant to custody of deputy sheriff made courtroom correc­tional facility. State v. Lane, 341 Or 433, 144 P3d 927 (2006)

Act of escaping is complete at time per­son departs from actual or constructive restraint by peace of­fi­cer. State v. Lonergan, 344 Or 15, 176 P3d 374 (2008)

For purpose of determining whether per­son used or threatened to use physical force to escape custody, per­son is in custody when peace of­fi­cer has actually or constructively restrained per­son for purpose of charging per­son with of­fense. State v. Alexander, 238 Or App 597, 243 P3d 476 (2010), Sup Ct review denied

Escape from custody imposed as result of post-prison supervision viola­tion after defendant served sen­tence of incarcera­tion is not escape from custody "imposed as a result" of felony con­vic­­tion within meaning of this sec­tion. State v. Patterson, 269 Or App 885, 346 P3d 614 (2015)

Notes of Decisions

Nonviolent flight from an at­tempted arrest is not crim­i­nal and thus evidence was insufficient to sustain escape charge where defendant was convicted of driving under influence of intoxicants and third de­gree escape. State v. Swanson, 34 Or App 59, 578 P2d 411 (1978)

Chapter 162

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 162—Offenses Against the State and Public Justice, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors162.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 162, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano162.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.