Aggravated Felonies



 
 

§ 3.49 A. Accessory After the Fact

 
Skip to § 3.

For more text, click "Next Page>"

Accessory after the fact prohibits a person who knows that a federal crime has been committed from comforting or assisting the principal offender in order to “hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment.”[344]  Another statute defines an accessory after the fact as one who: “harbors, conceals, or aids a principal in such felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment . . . .”[345]

 


[344] 18 U.S.C. § 3.  United States v. Taylor, 322 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2003) (trial court erred in refusing to dismiss accessory after the fact charge that was predicated on same facts that supported defendant’s conviction for aiding and abetting, because the government’s theory that the defendant was an accessory after the fact because he did not turn himself and the principal in to the authorities after the crime was committed would mean every principal is also an accessory in his own crime when he does not turn himself in, which would be an “absurd” result).

[345] California Penal Code § 32. 

Updates

 

AGGRAVATED FELONY -- ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT - SUPREME COURT REMANDS QUESTION TO NINTH CIRCUIT FOR CONSIDERATION
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, ___ U.S. ___, 2007 WL 98723 (Jan. 17, 2007) (question whether California conviction of violating Vehicle Code 10851(a) holds liable accessories after the fact, who need not be shown to have committed a theft, is remanded to the Ninth Circuit for consideration in the first instance).
AGGRAVATED FELONY - THEFT OFFENSE - WHETHER THEFT INCLUDES JOYRIDING REMANDED BY SUPREME COURT TO NINTH CIRCUIT FOR CONSIDERATION IN FIRST INSTANCE
Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, ___ U.S. ___, 2007 WL 98723 (Jan. 17, 2007) (remanding to Ninth Circuit claim that Cal. Vehicle Code 10851(1) applies to joyriding, which falls outside the generic "theft" definition, is not considered because it does not fall within the terms of the question presented, the lower court did not consider them, and this Court declines to reach them in the first instance).

 

TRANSLATE