Opinion ID: 2070942
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The case law and the commentaries.

Text: The question before us, namely, whether a defendant may be convicted of being an accessory after the fact to murder on the basis of actions taken while the decedent was still alive, was presented to this court less than five years ago in Outlaw, supra, 632 A.2d at 410-11. Although we disposed of Outlaw on other grounds without expressly deciding that question, we cited some of the relevant authorities [8] and provided a frame of reference for further analysis: Although we need not and do not take any position on the issue, we do note as a matter of historical fact, not focused upon by counsel, that the District's statute has remained unchanged at least since the beginning of the century, see 31 Stat. 1337, ch. 854, § 909 (1901), and that it has been construed as consistent with the common law.... As the government has acknowledged in its well-researched and scholarly brief, the early common-law commentators almost invariably take the view that a defendant may not be convicted as an accessory after the fact to murder unless the victim was dead at the time the defendant committed the acts of assistance. See, e.g., I HALE, PLEAS OF THE CROWN 621 (1st Amer. ed. 1847); 4 W. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 38 (Chitty ed. 1826); II W. HAWKINS, PLEAS OF THE CROWN 448 (Curwood ed. 1824). 632 A.2d at 411 n. 8. The authorities cited in the Outlaw footnote establish that under the common law which was in effect in 1901, when the District's AAF statute was enacted, Little could not have been successfully prosecuted as an accessory after the fact to a murder if the decedent was alive at the time Little provided Bailey with assistance. [9] In order to adopt the position urged upon us by the government, we would have to hold that Little may properly be convicted in 1994 of accessoryship after the fact to murder even though the conduct in which he engaged would not have constituted commission of that crime when the AAF statute was enacted, and even though the statute has not been amended in any pertinent respect in the near-century that has elapsed since then. Notwithstanding the Outlaw footnote, there is no dispositive District of Columbia precedent on the question before us. The cases elsewhere are divided, but a majority of the courts have adhered to the traditional common law rule, [10] with only a minority holding to the contrary. [11] The commentators are virtually unanimous in their adherence to the rule advocated by Little. [12] Notwithstanding what we perceive to be the overwhelming weight of authority, the government argues that the common law rule is irrational and ought to be revised. Discerning a trend among state legislatures in support of its position, see, e.g., II MODEL PENAL CODE AND COMMENTARIES, § 242.3, cmt. 3, at 228 (1980), the government asks the court to shape the common law of the District accordingly and to affirm Little's convictions. We are not persuaded, however, that our construction of a 1901 statute, the text of which has remained unchanged in pertinent respects for almost a century, should be affected by legislative developments in other jurisdictions. Indeed, as we have noted, the government is asking us, in prosecutions for accessoryship after the fact to murder, to apply Section 22-106 today to conduct which that statute did not reach at the time of its enactment. If the legislature were to amend the statute on the date of this opinion to conform to the government's position as to what the law should be, then the application of the new rule to Little would assuredly run afoul of the Constitution's proscription against ex post facto laws. Cf. Williams v. United States, 569 A.2d 97, 100 (D.C.1989). Assuming, without deciding, that this court's inherent power to alter or amend the common law, United States v. Jackson, 528 A.2d 1211, 1216 (D.C.1987); Linkins v. Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Found., 87 U.S.App. D.C. 351, 354-55, 187 F.2d 357, 360 (1950), permits us to expand, by judicial decree, the scope of a statutory criminal offense, our authority to do so must be exercised with restraint, lest we intrude upon the prerogatives of the legislative branch and the liberties of the citizen. Accordingly, we decline the government's invitation to amend the venerable common law rule, either as to Little or as to defendants who may be charged with accessoryship after the fact to murder in cases yet to come. Sharing the Supreme Court's instinctive distaste against men [and women] languishing in prison unless the lawmaker has clearly said they should, United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336, 348, 92 S.Ct. 515, 522-23, 30 L.Ed.2d 488 (1971) (quoting H. Friendly, Mr. Justice Frankfurter and the Reading of Statutes, in BENCHMARKS 196, 209 (1967)), we conclude that the legislature, and not the court, should decide whether the common-law rule, which is by no means a capricious obstacle to a prosecution, cf. Jackson, supra, 528 A.2d at 1220, [13] should be retained or revised. Justice Holmes said it well: Although it is not likely that a criminal will carefully consider the text of the law before he murders or steals, it is reasonable that a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear. McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27, 51 S.Ct. 340, 341, 75 L.Ed. 816 (1931).