(1) Any person who knowingly aids, abets, or assists another person to escape or attempt to escape from custody or confinement commits the offense of aiding escape.
(2) "Escape" is deemed to be a continuing activity commencing with the conception of the design to escape and continuing until the escapee is returned to custody or the attempt to escape is thwarted or abandoned.
(3) "Assist" includes any activity characterized as "rendering assistance" in section 18-8-105.
(4) Aiding escape is a class 2 felony if the person aided was in custody or confinement as a result of conviction of a class 1 or class 2 felony.
(5) Aiding escape is a class 3 felony if the person aided was in custody or confinement and charged with or held for any felony or convicted of any felony other than a class 1 or class 2 felony.
(6) Aiding escape is a class 2 misdemeanor if the person aided was in custody or confinement and charged with, held for, or convicted of a misdemeanor or a petty offense.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 457, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-8-201. L. 77: (1) amended, p. 966, § 41, effective July 1. L. 2021: (6) amended, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3196, § 282, effective March 1, 2022.
ANNOTATION
Annotator's note. Since § 18-8-201 is similar to former C.L. § 6805, a relevant case construing that provision has been included in the annotations to this section.
Acceptance of tools to effect escape not necessary to constitute crime. Under this section acceptance by a prisoner of files and saws to effect his escape was not necessary to complete defendant's statutory crime of assisting in an escape by conveying to him such tools. Compton v. People, 84 Colo. 106, 268 P. 577 (1928).
Nor is the attempted escape of the prisoner. This section does not require that jail break, or attempted exodus of the prisoner or prisoners from jail, be shown in order to complete the crime. Compton v. People, 84 Colo. 106, 268 P. 577 (1928).
Defense of execution of public duty held not authorized. A penitentiary guard, accused of aiding an escape, whose theory of the case is that he was attempting to apprehend an escaped criminal by using undercover techniques is not entitled to a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of execution of public duty when his authority to make an arrest is limited to penitentiary grounds and there is no evidence he had any authorization to engage in undercover activities. People v. Roberts, 43 Colo. App. 100, 601 P.2d 654 (1979).
Sufficiency of information. An information under this section which charged that defendant aided a prisoner to escape, though no attempt to escape was actually made, by conveying or causing to be delivered to the prisoner instruments to facilitate his escape, held to sufficiently inform defendant of the nature and cause of the accusation. Compton v. People, 84 Colo. 106, 268 P. 577 (1928).
Conviction under this section for aiding fugitive to flee warrants attorney disbarment despite lack of a prior disciplinary record. People v. Bullock, 882 P.2d 1390 (Colo. 1994).