Court Opinion

ID: 9864744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:09:16.076024+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:29.008296
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hilliard,
dissenting.
In my view, the record considered, defendant was not amenable to the prosecution resulting in his conviction. The statute (Compiled Laws 1921, §6646) provides that “An accessory after the fact is a person who, after full knowledge that a crime has been committed, conceals it *557from the magistrate, or harbors and protects the person charged with or found guilty of the crime. ’ ’
Whatever of concealment, or of harboring and protecting one subsequently charged with the crime of murder there was, it all occurred previous thereto. Indeed, until defendant here disclosed the facts pertaining to the homicide by a third party, such third party was not informed against for murder, and when charged this defendant was joined as a defendant. The third party has not been apprehended, but defendant, tried on the charge of murder, was acquitted. Subsequent to his acquittal the information charging him with being an accessory was filed, and on agreed facts, all as in the murder trial, he was adjudged to be guilty.
Construing a like statute, on facts not essentially differing, the Supreme Court of California said that “the word‘conceal,’ * * * means more than a simple withholding of knowledge possessed by a party that a felony has been committed.” “Mere silence,” the court added, “ after knowledge of its commission is not sufficient to constitute the party an accessory. Again, the word * charged,’ as used in the section, means a formal complaint, information or indictment filed against the criminal, or possibly an arrest without warrant might be sufficient.” Conviction there was reversed. People v. Garnett, 129 Cal. 364, 61 Pac. 1114. That case, if followed, as the opinion of the court indicates, would result in reversal of this judgment. But, since the courts of Arkansas and Nebraska have criticised the California holding, the conclusion is that we should do likewise and sustain this conviction. Neither the Arkansas nor Nebraska court, as I study their opinions, has answered the logic of the California decision, nor have we. Besides, neither of the jurisdictions where the criticism was indulged, was considering a state of facts so nearly like the California case as is this record. The Nebraska case is wholly different, and the Arkansas court finds refuge in statutes not to be found in California or here. The Arkansas and *558Nebraska courts, as it seems to me, and as I fear our court has done, so appraised the general despicability of the culprit charged with being an accessory, that they felt justified in “making” some law to fit his offending.