Sixth Circuit Discusses What Makes A Jail Escape A “Crime of Violence”

The case of  U.S. v. Benji Antonio Stout, involved one man’s escape from prison and how that escape should be classified with regard to a subsequent criminal prosecution. The man, Benji Antonio Stout, was charged with knowingly possessing body armor after having previously been convicted of a crime of violence. The previous crime of violence conviction was Stout’s earlier charge of second-degree escape, a conviction he earned from escaping a county jail. During the escape, Stout climbed a wall in the recreation area of the jail and then crawled through a hole in the top of the fence.

Stout and his attorneys argued that the prior conviction did not involve a crime of violence and asked the lower court for a hearing on the matter. The lower court concluded that his escape was a crime of violence given that his escape was purposeful and aggressive and that it created a substantial risk that he would need to use physical force against either guards or members of the public who encountered him during the escape. The fact that he never used such physical force was immaterial.

Stout then appealed the case, claiming essentially the same thing. The Sixth Circuit agreed with the decision of the lower court, holding that the escape amounted to a crime of violence. In its ruling, the Court walked through Kentucky’s statutes dealing with the subject of second-degree escape and determined that the type of escape at issue in this case involved “an escape by leaving custody in a secured setting.” This variety of escape involves a purposeful act and requires stealth and presents the possibility of both detection and ensuing confrontation.

The Sixth Circuit said that 18 U.S.C. Section 16(b) makes clear that a crime of violence includes any that involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used in the course of committing the offense. Under this definition, the Court says it is clear that the Stout’s escape meets the standard and should be properly deemed a crime of violence. As a result, his conviction and sentence were upheld.

In an interesting dissent, Judge Bernice Donald argued that unlike the famous prison escapes mentioned in The Count of Monte Cristo or The Shawshank Redemption, which Donald agrees would qualify as crimes of violence, Stout’s escape was achieved by merely climbing over a wall and crawling through a hole that he was not responsible for creating. Given that Stout never harmed anyone or any property in his escape, Judge Donald believes it is clear that his escape should not be labeled a crime of violence.

To read the full opinion, click here.

See Our Related Blog Posts:

Sentencing Friday For Amish Beard Cutting Case Then To Sixth Circuit

Sixth Circuit Says For Sentencing Purposes “Relevant Conduct” Must Be Criminal Conduct

State v. Bise: New Standard of Appellate Review of Sentencing Decisions

By Stevie Phillips

In a unanimous Tennessee Supreme Court opinion handed down on September 26, Chief Justice Wade outlines the historical development of state and federal sentencing guidelines.

In short, he observes that the 2005 amendments to Tennessee's 1989 Sentencing Act were passed for the purpose of bringing our sentencing scheme in line with United States Supreme Court sentencing decisions, namely Apprendi and its progeny.  This is the first time since the passage of those amendments that the Tennessee Supreme Court has had an opportunity to address the effect of those Supreme Court decisions on Tennessee's standard of appellate review. 

In the view of the Court, the effect is that "de novo appellate review and the 'presumption of correctness' [has] ceased to be relevant.  Instead, sentences imposed by the trial court within the appropriate statutory range are to be reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard with a 'presumption of reasonableness.'"

You can read the full opinion here. 

Man on Death Row Gets New Trial in Kingsport Killing

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals recently ruled that Steven James Rollins, a former death row inmate involved in the fatal stabbing of an elderly East Tennessee bait shop owner, ought to receive a new trial.

Rollins was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery in the killing of 81-year-old James T. Bussell inside Bussell’s Fisherman’s Paradise bait shop near Kingsport, TN in August of 2001. Rollins was originally sentenced to death, but the sentence was overturned in 2010 and a new sentencing hearing was ordered. The decision was then appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals which decided to reverse his conviction.

The Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that Rollins had received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the trial was also defective due to a “biased juror.” The two issues were related given that the Court found that Rollins’ attorney failed to properly question prospective jurors to help with weeding out those with biases.

The problematic juror was identified as “Juror 9.” In a 2008 affidavit, the juror admitted to knowing Bussell and having bought bait from him once a week before he was killed. The juror said that he had made up his mind about Rollins the moment they seated the jury. He said he could tell just by looking at him that he was guilty. The juror sealed the deal about his own bias by admitting that, in his opinion, “death is the only appropriate punishment” for someone who is convicted of murder.

The Court of Criminal Appeals said that Juror 9’s failure to admit his friendship with Bussell amounted to a presumption of bias. Given this bias, the Court found that Rollins was denied his right to a fair and impartial jury. The Court went on to highlight how Rollins’ attorney failed to ask jurors if they knew the victim, something the Court found to be “objectively unreasonable” and amounting to a “deficient performance.”

To read the full opinion, click here.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals on Split Confinement
TN Court of Criminal Appeals Rejects Petition From Defendant With Life Sentence