Quote Quoting Disagreeable
View Post
You were harboring a fugitive, a crime.
There is no indication here that the OP is harboring a felon. Generally speaking, laws penalizing harboring a fugitive require some affirmative act by the defendant to conceal or aid the felon in avoiding law enforcement or prosecution of the offense. Moreover, they often only apply to harboring felons. California’s statute that covers this is the law defining accessories after the fact, California penal Code section 32. It states:

32. Every person who, after a felony has been committed, 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, having knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is an accessory to such felony.

The California Courts have held, much like the courts of other jurisdictions in considering similar statutes, that some affirmative act of aid or concealment is necessary to violate this statute. The California Court of Appeals stated:

In contrast to affirmative falsehoods, the mere passive failure to reveal a crime, the refusal to give information, or the denial of knowledge motivated by self-interest does not constitute the crime of accessory....

As the court in Duty explained, “[T]he offense [of accessory] is not committed by passive failure to reveal a known felony, by refusal to give information to authorities, or by a denial of knowledge motivated by self-interest. On the other hand, an affirmative falsehood to the public investigator, when made with the intent to shield the perpetrator of the crime, may form the aid or concealment denounced by [section 32].” (Duty, supra, 269 Cal.App.2d at pp. 103-104, 74 Cal.Rptr. 606, fns. omitted, italics added.) Thus, a person generally does not have an obligation to volunteer information to police or to speak with police about a crime. If the person speaks, however, he or she may not affirmatively misrepresent facts concerning the crime, with knowledge the principal committed the crime and with the intent that the principal avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment.  (Id. at pp. 103-104, 74 Cal.Rptr. 606;  see also Crayton v. Superior Court (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 443, 451, 211 Cal.Rptr. 605.)   Furthermore, in determining whether a defendant had the requisite knowledge and intent to commit the crime of accessory, the jury may consider “such factors as [the defendant’s] possible presence at the crime or other means of knowledge of its commission, as well as his companionship and relationship with the principal before and after the offense.”  (Duty, supra, at p. 104, 74 Cal.Rptr. 606.)

People v. Plengsangtip, 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 165, 148 Cal. App. 4th 825 (2007).

Thus, a girlfriend simply living with her boyfriend simply because she wishes to do that to further their romantic relationship and who has taken no affirmative act to aid him in avoiding prosecution or capture is not harboring a felon. She lacks the necessary intent and had not taken any affirmative acts to help him avoid capture. Simply staying silent and not turning him in isn't enough. She has to do something, like lie to the police to help him avoid capture, to be an accessory after the fact. And here, we don’t even know that the warrant was for a felony. This statute only applies if the alleged crime was a felony offense and the OP knew he had committed a felony. Without more facts suggesting she actively aided him and that he was wanted on a felony there is no crime of harboring him here.