State v. Cross

Appellant raises two issues in this appeal. He argues that the jury should have been instructed concerning the common-law defense of necessity as set forth in People v. Lovercamp4 (1974), 43 Cal. App. 3d 823, 118 Cal. Rptr. 110, and that the phrase “[i]n the case of any other detention,” found in R. C. 2921.34(B), is so vague, arbitrary and unreasonable as to be an unconstitutional denial of due process under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I

We must first decide whether the affirmative defense of necessity or duress is precluded because of the language of the escape…