## Facts

- Barbara Jenner’s residence was damaged by a deliberately set fire; Jenner was convicted of arson for willfully setting fire to her home.
- Earl L. Duty was not charged as a principal in the arson; he was charged and convicted as an accessory after the fact under California Penal Code § 32.
- Around the time of the fire, Jenner’s car was seen first at her residence and later at a tavern; the back seat contained various household furnishings and goods.
- The fire marshal determined the fire started at approximately 3:15 a.m.
- Jenner told the fire marshal she had been with Duty the entire night prior and into that morning.
- Duty told authorities he had been at Jenner’s house in the evening; they then drove in his car to several inns and lodges (not including the tavern); Jenner’s car was left at one of these inns; and they left for San Francisco around 2:15 a.m. and did not return until about 10:30 a.m.
- The prosecution’s theory was that Duty aided Jenner after the arson by providing false or misleading information intended to divert investigation and protect her from apprehension and punishment.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Duty, after Jenner committed arson, aided her as an accessory under Penal Code § 32.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the elements of scienter (knowledge that Jenner committed the felony) and specific intent (intent to help Jenner avoid arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held there was substantial evidence, including reasonable inferences from the circumstances, supporting the jury’s finding that Duty had the required knowledge and specific intent.
- The court treated misleading post-crime statements to authorities as conduct that can constitute “aiding” a principal within Penal Code § 32 when coupled with the required mental states.
- The court declined to reweigh conflicts in the evidence, emphasizing deference to the jury on questions of state of mind.

## Legal Principles

- An accessory after the fact under California Penal Code § 32 requires proof that: (1) a completed felony was committed by another person; (2) the आरोपी harbored, concealed, or aided the principal; (3) the accused knew the principal committed (or was charged with or convicted of) the felony; and (4) the accused acted with the intent to help the principal avoid or escape arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment.
- On appeal, the sufficiency test is whether there is substantial evidence, including reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, supporting the finding of guilt.
- Scienter and specific intent are fact questions; they may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and an appellate court will not disturb the finding if the inference of the required state of mind is reasonably supported.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Duty’s accessory-after-the-fact conviction because the jury could reasonably infer from the surrounding circumstances and Duty’s statements that he knew Jenner had committed arson and intentionally aided her by giving misleading information designed to help her avoid detection and punishment.


People v. Duty, 74 Cal. Rptr. 606 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969)