People v. Duty - 269 Cal. App. 2d 97, 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 (1969)

Rule:

The gist of the offense described by Cal. Penal Code § 32 is that the accused "harbors conceals or aids" the principal with the requisite knowledge and intent. Any kind of overt or affirmative assistance to a known felon may fall within these terms. A person may be charged under § 32 when he aids the principal in concealing the latter's crime. The test of an accessory after the fact is that, he renders his principal some personal help to elude punishment, the kind of help being unimportant.

Facts:

Earl Duty was charged as an accessory to arson after he gave a statement to police that the woman who owned the residence had been with him the entire night and could not have been near it when it burned. Police had other evidence that the woman's car had been at the residence before the fire and that household furnishings and goods were in the car at a bar before the fire was discovered. She was convicted of arson. A jury found Duty guilty, and he appealed.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in finding Duty guilty as an accessory to arson?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment and held that there was substantial evidence that Duty made an affirmatively false statement to the public investigator with the intent that he would shield the perpetrator of the crime, and he was an "accessory" as that term was used in Cal. Penal Code § 32. The court did not consider objections not raised at trial. Duty was not "forced" to take the stand after the prosecution proved his statement was false, and his right to remain silent was not violated. The prosecution had the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt throughout the entire case.