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.
See Our Related Blog Posts: