State v. Crosby
In State v. Crosby, 770 P.2d 1154 (Alaska App. 1989) the defendant in Crosby was a sentenced prisoner who was released from prison on furlough to a residential drug treatment program, Akeela House. Shortly after Crosby arrived at this residential facility, he walked away.
The State charged Crosby with second-degree escape, alleging (in the words of the statute) that he removed himself "from a correctional facility while under official detention." The superior court ruled that Akeela House was not a "correctional facility" for purposes of the escape statute, and the State then appealed.
The term "correctional facility" is defined in AS 11.81.900(b); it means "any premises ... used for the confinement of persons under official detention".
In Crosby, the State took the position that, under this definition, the term "correctional facility" applied to any facility utilized by the Department of Corrections to house prisoners. But the Court rejected the State's reading of the statutory definition.
In Crosby, the State argued that the term "correctional facility" applied to any facility utilized by the Department of Corrections to house prisoners. But as this Court noted in Crosby, the statutory definition of "correctional facility" does not encompass any and all premises used for the placement or custody of persons under official detention. Rather, the statute defines "correctional facility" as premises used for the confinement of persons under official detention. Crosby, 770 P.2d at 1155.