## Facts

- Roy Dale Stephens allowed Harry Van Buren to stay with him overnight pursuant to an arrangement made before any crime occurred.
- Around 8:00 p.m., Van Buren told Stephens and Stephens’ girlfriend that he had burglarized Yellowstone Electric earlier that day; Stephens said he did not want to hear about it and went to bed.
- The next morning, Van Buren left and later returned; he then accompanied Stephens to look for a truck part as previously planned.
- After failing to find the part, Stephens asked Van Buren for money to buy a car; Van Buren gave Stephens $100, which Stephens applied toward a used car purchase.
- Stephens drove the purchased car home while Van Buren drove Stephens’ truck.
- Upon arriving, Stephens saw police questioning Van Buren; officers then questioned Stephens about the burglary.
- Stephens initially denied any knowledge of the burglary; after further questioning, he referenced having previously received money from Van Buren connected to a different burglary years earlier, but stated he would not be involved again.
- The State charged Stephens as an accessory after the fact to burglary under Wyo. Stat. § 6-5-202 (1977) (June 1983 Repl.), asserting he “harbored” or “concealed” Van Buren by letting him stay and by not reporting the crime, and that his denial to police constituted assistance to avoid detection.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Stephens “harbor[ed], conceal[ed], or aid[ed]” the principal through an affirmative act constituting “rendering assistance” under § 6-5-202.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Stephens acted with the specific intent to hinder, delay, or prevent Van Buren’s discovery or apprehension, as required by § 6-5-202.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed Stephens’ conviction.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove (1) an affirmative act of assistance and (2) the statutorily required specific intent.
- The court ordered the charge dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- Accessory-after-the-fact liability under § 6-5-202 requires proof of both (1) an affirmative act of “harbor[ing], conceal[ing], or aid[ing]” and (2) specific intent to hinder, delay, or prevent the offender’s discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment.
- An arrangement to provide lodging made before the felony and for independent reasons does not, without more, establish post-crime assistance to avoid arrest.
- Passive conduct, including mere silence or failure to report, does not satisfy the statute absent an affirmative act of assistance.
- A mere denial of knowledge to police is distinct from an affirmative misrepresentation of facts that actually aids the offender; a self-protective denial, without more, is insufficient to prove statutory assistance or intent.

## Conclusion

Because the State did not prove an affirmative act by Stephens that aided Van Buren after the burglary, nor that Stephens acted with the specific intent to hinder or prevent Van Buren’s apprehension, the conviction for accessory after the fact was reversed and the charge dismissed.


Stephens v. State, 734 P.2d 555 (Wyo. 1987)