[Vision2020] Facts

[Ron Force]

I think this cite from L/N explains it:
KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENT.
   The appropriate interpretation of § 18-205 regarding an accessory who harbored or protected a person charged with, or convicted of, a felony was that the knowledge requirement was met if the person had notice that the accused was charged with, or convicted 
of, a felony. State v. Teasley, 138 Idaho 113, 58 P.3d 97 (Ct. App. 2002).
 
It's not your belief that a felony may have occurred-- the person has to be charged with, or convicted of, the same.

 
Ron Force
Moscow Idaho USA


________________________________
From: Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
To: Moscow Vision 2020 <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 12:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Facts


Thank you for your very clear explanation.  
 
However, given your track record on Vision 2020 
on legal matters, I am not inclined to accept your apodictic statement without 
citations and explanations.  
 
 
18-205. Accessories defined. All persons are 
accessories who, having knowledge that a felony has been 
committed: 
(1)  Willfully withhold or conceal 
it from a peace officer, judge, magistrate, grand jury or trial jury; 
or 
(2)  Harbor and protect a person who committed 
such felony or who has been charged with or convicted thereof. 
 
I do not have access from home 
to Lexis so I can not look up the case law on this statute.  That's why I 
asked the question here.  I'd hoped that someone competent at law in 
these matters could look it up and provided us with citations and an 
explanation.  Perhaps someone will.
 
From information presented in 
the media, it appears that Bushamante committed felony aggravated assault or 
assault with a deadly weapon.  I appears that Ms. Benoit reported it 
to a person at the UI thus giving that person knowledge that a felony was committed.  According to remarks made by 
Sheriff Rausch at the local Crapo rally this week, no person from the UI reported it to any local law enforcement agency. 
 
Can not reporting a 
felony be construed in ordinary language (the first test a court would apply if 
the terms are not specifically defined) as an act of willfully withholding or 
concealing?  How is "having knowledge that a felony has occurred" to be 
construed by the courts?  Is not being told by a victim of a felony, a 
victim whose credibility has not been questioned, amount to knowledge in the 
sense that it the assertion is much more likely to be true than 
not?
 
I hope that someone competent, 
unbiased, and not lazy in authority will ask carefully research these 
questions, and act forcefully upon the answers.
 
w. 

From: Andreas Schou 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 10:16 AM
To: Art Deco 
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Facts
> Also, I wonder if this statute might apply:
> http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH2SECT18-205.htm

No. 
It certainly does not.

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.  
              http://www.fsr.net                      
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110826/9b715f57/attachment.html