People v. Partee, 456 P.3d 437

In 2006 Partee reported a rental car stolen and, during a recorded LAPD homicide interview, implicated her brother, cousin, and two friends in a murder and said she would not testify because of loyalty and safety concerns.
Partee was later subpoenaed and, after being found in 2015, held as a material witness; the DA granted her use immunity at a preliminary hearing but she still refused to testify and was held in contempt.
The murder charges against the four suspects were dismissed twice after Partee declined to testify; she ultimately was criminally charged with four felony counts of accessory after the fact (Pen. Code § 32) and one misdemeanor count of contempt (Pen. Code § 166(a)(6)).
At trial Partee testified about past retaliation, threats, fear for her and her child’s safety, and family obligations as reasons for silence; a jury convicted her on the four accessory counts and the contempt count but found gang enhancements not true.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the accessory convictions, reasoning that refusal to testify despite a subpoena and immunity was affirmative assistance because she had a duty to testify.
The California Supreme Court reversed the four accessory convictions, holding that a witness’s refusal to testify in the face of a valid subpoena—while punishable as contempt—does not by itself constitute the "harbors, conceals, or aids" element of § 32 requiring overt or affirmative assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a witness’s refusal to testify under subpoena and use immunity can satisfy the § 32 element that the accused "harbors, conceals or aids" a principal	Partee’s silence after a legal duty to testify amounted to affirmative assistance that helped suspects avoid trial and punishment	Silence—even when a legal duty exists—is mere passive nondisclosure, at most contempt, and not the overt or affirmative assistance § 32 requires	No; refusal to testify under subpoena, by itself, does not satisfy § 32’s requirement of overt or affirmative assistance; accessory convictions reversed
Whether the presence of a subpoena and grant of immunity (i.e., a legal duty) or the witness’s intent to help principals converts silence into affirmative assistance	Subpoena/immunity create a duty that transforms silence into an overt act; specific intent to help makes silence actionable under § 32	Duty and intent are distinct elements; intent to help does not convert inaction into the requisite affirmative act	No; duty and mens rea are separate—intent alone cannot change the nature of inaction into overt assistance under § 32

People v. Nuckles, 56 Cal.4th 601 (2013) (sets out § 32 elements and requires "overt or affirmative assistance")
People v. Duty, 269 Cal.App.2d 97 (1969) (upheld § 32 conviction where defendant gave affirmative false alibi to investigators)
In re I.M., 125 Cal.App.4th 1195 (2005) (upheld accessory conviction based on misleading statements to police intended to shield principal)
People v. Plengsangtip, 148 Cal.App.4th 825 (2007) (affirmative misrepresentations to police supported § 32 conviction; mere refusal to speak does not)
People v. Nguyen, 21 Cal.App.4th 518 (1993) (reversed accessory convictions where evidence showed only refusal to talk or downplaying—insufficient for § 32)
People v. Garnett, 129 Cal. 364 (1900) (holding mere silence after knowledge of a felony is insufficient to make one an accessory)
People v. Linville, 27 Cal.App.5th 919 (2018) (disposing of vehicle used in murder is paradigmatic affirmative assistance)
People v. Gunn, 197 Cal.App.3d 408 (1987) (examples of overt assistance: driving principal away, suggesting concealment of weapon)
Shortridge v. Municipal Court, 151 Cal.App.3d 611 (1984) (rejects construction of § 32 that would criminalize mere passive nondisclosure)