Arizona silver belt. [volume] (Globe City, Pinal County, Ariz.) 1878-19??, 1883-09-08
ISedGeId'ss Guilt.

Joe Tuttlcs confession as to the Rlv-
erside stage robbery, and in an edito-
rial paragraph says:
"From'it the public will learn that
while Redfeld was not in at the shoot
ing, he understood the men were to
rob the stage; thus far he was accesso-
ry, and the question is, was the mob
justified in doing that the law would
not do If the man had been tried and
found guilty"
The question is here presented as to
the punishment of an accessory. An
examination of the statutes of the Ter
ritory, will show that there may be
three persons in different characters
engaged in the perpetration or con-
cealmeat of a public offense: An ac-
cessofy, a principal, and an accessory
after the fact. An accessory is one
who stands by and aids, abets, and
assists; or who, not being present,
hath advised and encouraged the per-
petration of the crime. An accessory
shall be deemed and considered as
principal and punished accordingly.
An accessory after the fact, is per-
son who, after full knowledge that
crime has been committed, conceals it
from the magistrate, or harbors and
protects the person charged with or
found guilty of the crime. In such
cases the maximum punishmentls Is two
years imprisonment and fine not ex-
ceeding five thousand dollars. Now,
if the facts set forth in Tuttles con-
fession be true, Redfield was clearly
both an accessory as to the robbery,
and also an accessory after the fact, as
to that offense. He had encouraged
the perpetration of the robbery, and
with full knowledge that this Of
fense had been committed, concealed
it from the magistrate and harbored
the parties who informed him that
they had committed the crime. He
was, therefore, as to the robbery, liza
BILE to the punishment above stated.
The more serious question now
arises: Was Redfield accessory as to
the murder which happened in the
preparation of the robbery? If so,
he was liable to punishment of the
same kind and to the same extent as
that awarded to the principals
Whether or not there was a plan or
conspiracy to murder, is not shown by
the confession. But it is satisfactory.
, ly proven by other testimony that a
murder was committed in this partic.
ular robbery, to which robbery he was
accessory, and that this murder i'm
mediately preceded the robbery and
was deemed necessary for the acom'
plishment of the last named offense
1t was the intention of all the parties
to rob the stage of a treasure box
which was well known to be under
the care of an armed messenger, whose
duty it was to protect it. The parties
went to the place agreed upon, also
fully armed; murder was one of the
probable consequences of this robbery
When parties prepare to perform a
certain act they ordinarily intend to
take such steps as will enable them tc
carry out their original purpose. The
providing of arms by these offenders
who knew that the treasure was
guarded, leads to the conclusion that
they intended the killing of the mes,
senger as one of the probable conse'
quences of the felony clearly contem.
plated. The rule of law applicable to
accessories in such cases, is we'll es.
tablished, and is correctly laid by
Wharton in his book on Criminal
Law, that is, "The accessory is liable
for all that ensues as incident to the
execution of the unlawful act com.
mandod." "An accessory before the
fact Tor instigator) is responsible fol
all crimes incidental to the criminal
misconduct he counsels."
We approve the course taken by the
citizens of Florence, in hanging Tut
tle,,. we submit that Redfeld was
equally guilty with him.