Defendant was convicted by a jury of the crime of escape 1 from the Utah State Prison. He appeals .therefrom claiming the trial court erred in refusing to submit to the jury his asserted defense of “coercion.” It is his contention that the escape resulted from coercipn and that he is excused of his act under the terms of 76-1-41, U.C.A. 1953, which provides:

“All persons are capable of commit- • ting crimes, except those belonging, to the following classes * * *

“(9) Persons, unless the crime is punishable with death, who commit the act or make the omission charged under threats or menaces sufficient to show that they have reasonable cause to believe, and do believe, their lives will be endangered if they refuse(Emphasis added.)

Defendant admits his escape. However, it, was his testimony that he did so because of trouble with other prison inmates. Ac-. cording to defendant, he broke a transistor radio belonging to another prisoner. This prisoner demanded payment therefor, but. defendant was unable to comply. There-' upon he was assaulted by other prisoners on several occasions. This trouble prompted him to escape.

The trial court was correct. As much as one might commiserate with the defendant’s plight, it remains the fact that he did not escape because he feared his life to be in danger if he refused to do so. His act of escape was the result of a voluntary decision of his own. •

Affirmed.