People v. Antwine, 9 N.Y.3d 671 (2008)

Under Penal Law § 205.10(2), a person “escapes from custody” when they break free from an officer’s restraint or control with the conscious purpose of evading that custody, regardless of whether they leave a physical structure.

Summary

Antwine was arrested for grand larceny and other charges. While in the hospital for treatment, he removed his handcuff and fled down a hallway. He was apprehended before exiting the hospital. He argued that he could not be convicted of escape in the second degree because he did not leave the hospital, analogizing his situation to escape from a “detention facility” under a different subdivision of the escape statute. The New York Court of Appeals held that physical departure from a structure is not required for a conviction under Penal Law § 205.10(2). The key element is breaking free from the restraint imposed by a public servant with the intent to evade custody.

Facts

On April 22, 2003, Antwine was arrested for stealing a car with two children inside and crashing it. He was taken to the precinct, where he complained of a toothache and hernia. Officer Bohan-McDowell escorted him, in handcuffs, to St. Barnabas Hospital by ambulance. At the hospital, the officer handcuffed Antwine’s right wrist to the bed. After Antwine complained the handcuff was too tight, the officer started to loosen it. Antwine then lifted the handcuff and ran away. The officer caught up to him about 25-30 feet down the hallway, but he broke free again and headed toward the hospital exit. The officer tackled him before he exited the building.

Procedural History

Antwine was charged with robbery, grand larceny, endangering the welfare of a child, and escape. A jury acquitted him of robbery but convicted him of grand larceny, escape in the second degree, and two counts of endangering the welfare of a child. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. This appeal followed.

Issue(s)

Whether legally sufficient evidence existed to support Antwine’s conviction for escape in the second degree under Penal Law § 205.10(2), where he fled from an officer while handcuffed to a hospital bed but was apprehended before exiting the hospital.

Holding

Yes, because under Penal Law § 205.10(2), escape occurs when a defendant breaks free from an officer’s restraint or control with the conscious purpose to evade custody, regardless of whether they leave a physical structure.

Court’s Reasoning

The court distinguished Penal Law § 205.10(2) from § 205.10(1), which concerns escape “from a detention facility.” The latter requires a crossing of a tangible threshold. However, § 205.10(2) focuses on whether the defendant escaped from “custody,” defined in Penal Law § 205.00(2) as “restraint by a public servant.” The court relied on the commonly understood definition of “escape” as “to get away (as by flight or conscious effort): break away, get free or get clear,” citing People v. Hutchinson, 56 N.Y.2d 868, 870 (1982). The court reasoned that once Antwine broke free from the officer’s control and had removed himself from her custody without authorization, the elements of Penal Law § 205.10(2) were met. "Here, the statute requires proof that defendant “escape[d] from custody.” “Custody,” in turn, “means restraint by a public servant” (Penal Law § 205.00 [2]). Hence, once the People show that a defendant broke free or got away from the restraint or control of the officer, as defendant did here by physically removing restraints to free himself from the controls imposed and running away, sufficient evidence exists to support the crime of escape." The court also noted that simply circumventing handcuffs, while remaining under the officer’s control, would only constitute attempted escape. The key was that Antwine was no longer under the officer’s control, requiring her to give chase and placing herself and the public at risk. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that escape requires exiting a building. It would lead to "incongruous results" if a defendant who traveled 35-45 feet through multiple doorways after breaking free from his handcuffs only to fall a few feet short of the exit door should not be found guilty of the crime of escape.