State v. Chism - 436 So. 2d 464 (La. 1983)

Rule:

Under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 14:25, an accessory after the fact is any person, who, after the commission of a felony, shall harbor, conceal, or aid the offender, knowing or having reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the felony, and with the intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment. In order to convict an accused of being an accessory after the fact, the state must prove that the accused acted with the specific intent to prevent the apprehension or punishment of a person he knows or has reason to believe has committed a felony. A person may be punished as an accessory after the fact if he aids an offender personally, knowing or having reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the felony, and has a specific or general intent that the offender will avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment.

Facts:

On the evening of August 26, 1981, Tony Duke gave the defendant, Brian Chism, a ride in his automobile. The defendant was impersonating a female. The two stopped to pick up some beer at the residence of the defendant’s grandmother. Defendant’s uncle, Ira Lloyd, joined them, and the three continued on their way. The defendant’s uncle announced that he wanted to find the ex-wife because of his desire to have sexual relations. They then arrived at the place. An argument ensued between the defendant’s uncle and his wife; he stabbed her with a knife several times. Defendant’s uncle ordered Duke to drive to someplace and when they arrived, under the uncle’s direction, the defendant and Duke removed the ex-wife from the car and placed her on some high grass on the side of the roadway. As requested by the defendant’s uncle, they left him with his ex-wife. There was no evidence that the defendant or Duke protested, resisted, or attempted to avoid the actions that the defendant’s uncle ordered them to take. Although the defendant’s uncle was armed with a knife, there was no evidence that he threatened either of his companions with harm. Defendant then changed to male clothing and placed the blood-stained women's clothes in a trash bin. Afterward, the defendant went with his mother to the police station. And gave the police a complete statement and took the officers to the place where they left his uncle with his uncle’s ex-wife. An autopsy indicated that stab wounds had caused her death. Defendant’s discarded clothing disappeared before the police arrived at the trash bin. The defendant was convicted by a judge of being an accessory after the fact under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:25. The defendant was sentenced to three years in prison with two and one-half years suspended. Defendant appealed from the District Court which convicted and sentenced him for being an accessory after the fact. On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant's conviction but vacated and remanded the sentence.

Issue:

Was the defendant guilty of being an accessory after the fact under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:25? 

Answer:

Yes. The court affirmed defendant's conviction for being an accessory after the fact, but vacated his sentence. The case was remanded for resentencing.

Conclusion:

The court held that the prosecution satisfied its burden of producing the required quantity of evidence to support the conviction. It was of no consequence that a defendant was formally charged with accessory after the fact to second degree murder instead of accessory after the fact to attempted murder because he was fairly put on notice of the offense charged. However, the court found that the sentence was found to be illegal because the trial judge had no authority to suspend part of a sentence in a felony case. Thus, the court held that the correct sentence would have been a suspension of all three years of the term, with a six-month term as a condition of two-year probation under La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 895(B). The case was then remanded for resentencing.