Harbouring Escaped Prisoner Prosecutions
✅ Definition: Harbouring an Escaped Prisoner
Harbouring an escaped prisoner generally refers to knowingly providing shelter, assistance, or aid to a person who has escaped lawful custody (such as a prison, jail, or detention center), with the awareness of their status as an escapee.
Common Elements in the Offense:
The person aided is a prisoner or detainee who has escaped lawful custody.
The accused knowingly harbored or aided the escapee.
The harboring or assistance was intentional.
The assistance was done with the knowledge of the person’s escaped status.
⚖️ Legal Issues Common in Harbouring Escaped Prisoner Cases
Knowledge: Did the accused know the person was an escaped prisoner?
Intent: Was the assistance intentional and voluntary?
Nature of Assistance: What kind of aid was provided? Shelter, transportation, communication, money, etc.?
Whether the prisoner had actually escaped lawfully.
The timing: Was the assistance given before or after the escape was known?
📚 Case 1: United States v. Tucker, 641 F.2d 1010 (5th Cir. 1981)
Facts:
Tucker was convicted for harboring an escaped federal prisoner who fled from a federal detention center. Tucker provided a place for the escapee to stay and helped with transportation.
Ruling:
The court upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the government must prove the defendant knew the prisoner had escaped and that the assistance was intentional.
Importance:
Reinforces that knowledge and intent are essential elements in harbouring prosecutions. Mere accidental or unknowingly helping an escapee is insufficient for conviction.
📚 Case 2: People v. Jones, 123 Cal. App. 3d 516 (1981)
Facts:
Jones was charged with harboring an escaped state prisoner. He allowed the escapee to stay in his home for several days.
Ruling:
The California appellate court held that even temporary shelter qualifies as harboring. The defendant’s knowledge of the escape was established by evidence of communication between Jones and the prisoner about the escape.
Importance:
Shows that even short-term shelter can constitute harboring if the defendant knew about the escape.
📚 Case 3: State v. Gilliam, 267 N.W.2d 592 (Iowa 1978)
Facts:
Gilliam was convicted for assisting an escapee by providing food and clothing after the escape.
Ruling:
The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that providing basic necessities with knowledge of the escape qualifies as harboring.
Importance:
Expands the concept of "harboring" beyond shelter to include other forms of aid or assistance.
📚 Case 4: United States v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105 (9th Cir. 1982)
Facts:
Bailleaux was charged with harboring an escaped prisoner after giving the escapee money and a ride to another state.
Ruling:
The court upheld the conviction, stating that aiding in the movement or concealment of an escapee is harboring, and such acts require knowledge and intent.
Importance:
Establishes that harboring includes transportation or facilitation of escape, not just physical shelter.
📚 Case 5: People v. Brown, 260 Cal. App. 2d 179 (1968)
Facts:
Brown was charged after helping an escaped prisoner evade capture for weeks by supplying him with food and money.
Ruling:
Court found the evidence sufficient for conviction. The defendant's active role in assisting escapee evasion was central to the ruling.
Importance:
Reaffirms that ongoing assistance, even after the initial escape, supports a harboring conviction.
📚 Case 6: State v. McCormick, 291 P.3d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013)
Facts:
McCormick was accused of harboring a prisoner who escaped from a county jail. She hid the escapee in her apartment and lied to police.
Ruling:
The court found that hiding the prisoner and obstructing law enforcement efforts constituted harboring. McCormick's knowledge was supported by testimony and evidence.
Importance:
Highlights that active concealment and obstruction are key components of harboring.
📚 Case 7: United States v. Randall, 661 F.2d 1340 (11th Cir. 1981)
Facts:
Randall was prosecuted for harboring a prisoner who escaped from federal custody. Randall was unaware the prisoner had escaped.
Ruling:
The court reversed the conviction, ruling that lack of knowledge that the prisoner escaped negates harboring.
Importance:
Again underscores knowledge is critical—good faith assistance to a person unaware of their escaped status is not harboring.
🔍 Summary of Legal Principles from These Cases
| Principle | Description | Key Case(s) |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge of Escape | Defendant must know that the person aided is an escaped prisoner. | Tucker, Randall |
| Nature of Assistance | Shelter, transportation, food, money, and concealment all can constitute harboring. | Jones, Gilliam, Bailleaux |
| Intentionality | The aid must be intentional and voluntary, not accidental. | Tucker, Brown |
| Concealment and Obstruction | Actively hiding an escapee and interfering with law enforcement is harboring. | McCormick |
| Duration and Extent of Aid | Both short-term and long-term assistance qualify. | Jones, Brown |
🧠 Practical Considerations
The prosecution must prove knowledge and intent beyond reasonable doubt.
Defense strategies often focus on lack of knowledge or accidental aid.
Providing minor aid without knowledge of escape may not be criminal.
Different jurisdictions may have nuanced definitions and penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments