[Vision2020] Facts

[Art Deco]

Ron,

Thank you for providing an explanation with an appropriate citation.  Very professional, unlike the previous responder.

w.


From: Ron Force 
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 2:23 PM
To: Art Deco ; Moscow Vision 2020 
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Facts


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/d32b9093/attachment.html