United States v. Darryl Vowiell

involved only violations visions Furgatch’s past to those similar facts Moreover, even if we as- violations. two injunction refers sumed that provisions which of these violations

future Furgatch’s past vio- factually similar are way specify- lations, have no would we the district factual similarities ing which sum, In be- regarded as relevant. court susceptible “is injunction to more cause interpretation— therefore than [and] satisfy exacting requirements fails Cause, 65(d),” Rule see Common (D.C.Cir.1982), we remand to court for district injunc- prohibited conduct precise tion.

VI conclusion, district we affirm the $25,000 penal- of a civil court’s assessment statutory reject Furgatch’s chal- ty. We injunction, remand for the lenge to the injunction court to limit the district duration, state the reasons reasonable injunction, specify precise con- prohibited by injunction. duct part; part; Affirmed in reversed its Each side shall bear own remanded. costs. America,

UNITED STATES Plaintiff-Appellee, VOWIELL, Darryl Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-1039. Appeals, United States Court of Ninth Circuit. *. Dec. 1987 Submitted March Decided * 34(a). Fed.R.App.P. panel 34-4 and appropriate case for submis- Circuit Rule finds this argument pursuant sion without oral to Ninth

ORDER slip opinion May filed 1988 is

withdrawn; Opinion hereby and dissent are filed place; in its petition rehearing for filed with re- spect opinion May filed rejected moot; No petitions rehearing further for will be entertained respect with to this opinion. immediately. mandate shall issue SO ORDERED.

OPINION

WIGGINS, Judge: Circuit Darryl appeals his convictions for stemming offenses from the escape of three prisoners. Vowiell claims that the district in admitting court erred statement of a and in giving ambiguous jury instruction. We REVERSE and REMAND for a new trial.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW April 16, 1986, On Rodney Murdoch, Syl- Shelley through via Brown and Bosch cut escaped fence and from Federal Correc- Pleasanton, tional Institute at California. escapees just David Record met the outside dropped fence. Record Murdoch off in San Francisco and the two women to drove Hill, California, Morgan to meet Robert (aka “B.J.”). appear, Shutte did not Shutte stayed so Bosch and Brown Record days April for two in San Jose. On picked up prear- at the Shutte the women ranged Morgan Hill location and drove Francisco, Cal., Selby, Mantón L. San them to Bosch and Bakersfield. Brown defendant-appellant. Bakersfield a half left one and later morning on the 21. All April three Zanides, Atty., Mark N. Asst. San subsequently apprehended, were Francisco, Cal., plaintiff-appellee. tried, and convicted. According presented to the evidence trial, Vowiell, Darryl prisoner at Pleasan- ton, conspired assisted and to assist in the escape. Murdoch testified that Vowiell of- FLETCHER, cutters, helped arrange Before fered to WIGGINS and obtain bolt driver, NOONAN, Judges. getaway Circuit for a car and and identified driver) Record, charged (the and David Record were to Murdoch while Record David visiting Kathy, escape in his sister anoth- with violation of Record Pleasanton, California. assist the U.S.C. 7521 and er inmate at asking him to postcard in violation of 371.2 David U.S.C. § had sent in- gave then him written charged her. She Shutte was visit he visited her map and David Record structions Shutte agreed pay to Vowiell prison. the Murdoch of harboring an violation of with to $1,000 assistance. Murdoch was except for his 1072.3 All defendants U.S.C.V§ Randy Whittington money to the guilty. send and pled Shutte Vowiell Vowiell Randy nephew the Oildale, California. assisting jury after a of was convicted trial Whittington. Billy Ray was Billy Ray of escape the and with [Count III] Pleasanton, of good friend a an inmate at the to assist Vowiell [Count II]. Vowiell’s, of Mur- a former roommate count, year to on each was sentenced also testified Vowiell doch’s. Murdoch to the to run consecutive each sentences Bosch', Shelley include Vow- him to asked he other and consecutive to the sentence escape. in the girlfriend, iell’s already serving. timely ap Vowiell jurisdiction pursuant to pealed. We have Whittington Billy Ray corroborated 28 U.S.C. testimony regarding much of Murdoch’s planning the es-

Vowiell’s involvement II. Ray heard cape. Billy testified that he cut- Murdoch discuss the bolt Vowiell and ANALYSIS getaway Billy Ray car. also the ters and claims the district court Vowiell arrange nephew Randy for his helped to admitting alleged erred in his money for the Vowiell. receive that the needed to leave Bakers- also testified for the Record David gave allegedly field. Vowiell this informa- objection he government. Over defense relayed Kathy. tion She it to David April the stated that on Record who at trial. The district testified his him escape, sister told that: court ruled that the statement was admissi- Darryl things said that were [Vowiell] coconspirator a ble as statement under hot; smoking, they were were Feds 801(d)(2)(E). The court found Fed.R.Evid. around, get swarming and to in touch during that the statement was made get girls of B.J. and out there harboring part because is of possible. soon as long process and that for so as the Record then called Shutte to warn David the prisoners continues and are girls get out of Bakersfield. him to large, totally complete. morning. and Bosch left next Brown argues Vowiell that his statements were grand jury not made course of in further- On June persons for offenses related ance indicted seven of because immediate Murdoch, Brown, pursuit Bosch had ended in "" were escape. Vowiell, Kathy safety. place 752(a) provides: persons conspire If or Section two more commit any attempts the United States ... and Whoever rescues or stigates, to rescue or in- attempt any escape, persons aids or assists the or one or more of such do act to any upon person arrested a war- conspiracy, effect the each shall process any $10,000 rant or other issued under law imprisoned not more than or fined custody or committed to the the United years, or not more than five both. Attorney any or to General institution direction, shall, by facility if the custo- or dy provides: 3.Section or confinement is virtue of an arrest any willfully or conceals Whoever harbors charge any felony, of- a fense, or conviction of prisoner custody of after his from the $5,000 im- be fined not more than or Attorney penal or from Federal General years, prisoned both____ or than five more institution, impris- shall be or correctional years. not more than three oned provides part: 2. Section addition, argues say that the dis- exception within an to the hearsay gave jury trict court an erroneous instruc- rule.

tion that warrants Under 801(d)(2)(E), Fed.R.Evid. reversal. statement of a coconspirator hearsay is not “during made the course and in further A. Admission state- ance of the conspiracy.” admitting Before ment statement, the court must determine standard for review of a district preponderance of the evidence that there ruling court’s that a statement was made was a conspiracy between the declarant conspiracy depends in furtherance of a nonoffering party, and that upon ruling challenged whether that statement was made “in the course of and legal findings its factual or its conclusions. in furtherance” of the conspiracy. Bour- In Bourjaily, Court looked at jaily, 107 S.Ct. at 2779. whether the factfinding district court’s re Vowiell asserts that the statements he garding the existence of conspiracy and allegedly Kathy made to Record days the defendant’s in involvement it was clear after the escape do not scope fall within the ly Bourjaily States, erroneous. v. United 801(d)(2)(E). of Rule He contends that the 171, 483 U.S. 97 L.Ed. statements were not “in furtherance of” or (1987). case, however, 2d 144 In this “during the of” course the conspiracy to engaged district court pure more than assist the escape conspiracy because the factfinding; legal the court made a conclu terminated when Bosch and Brown reached sion about when a to assist an Shutte’s residence Bakersfield. Al- Thus, escape ends. the district court’s de though incorrectly Vowiell focuses on his question cision involved a mixed of law and statements, Kathy Record’s, rather than fact which this court reviews de novo. agree analysis. we with his Both Vowiell McConney, 728 F.2d Kathy were involved in the same con- (9th Cir.) (en banc), denied, cert. 469 spiracy. It ended when the temporary reached safety. (1984). standard, Under this de novo we general rule, as set forth find that the district court erred in admit Court Krulewitch v. United ting testimony. David Record’s States, 93 L.Ed. testimony David Record’s related two (1949), is that extra-judicial statements out-of-court statements. The first is the are not admissible the nondeclarant statement Kathy Vowiell to Record that if made objective after the chief of the “things were hot.” This statement is not conspiracy had ended either success or hearsay because it was not offered to 442-43, 717-18; failure. at Id. 69 S.Ct. at prove the truth of the matter asserted. States, see also Atkins v. United 307 F.2d 801(c). Fed.R.Evid. It was irrelevant at (9th We must deter Vowiell’s trial whether or not Vowiell was mine, therefore, Kathy’s whether effort to “things correct that were hot” and the protect escapees’ concealment was done actually Feds swarming.” “were in furtherance of the main objec criminal simply statement was offered to show tive of the assist knowledge

Vowiell’s participation of and only up or to cover after the crime. escape plans. The second statement is Kathy’s Congress to David that distinguished Vowiell has given warnings. had her assisting This out-of- crime of an from that of only probative court statement was harboring concealing escaped prison true or an —i.e., if actually Kathy Compare told er. 18 U.S.C. 752 with 18 U.S. § get girls instruct Shutte to charged out of Bak- C. Record was testimony ersfield. regarding assisting conspiring David’s Ka- with to assist the thy’s escape; charged statement was thus admissible if she was not with harbor category making ing/concealing it fell within a conspiring it nonhear- or to harbor/con- conspiracy, acts of conceal- aiding an of the crime of escapees. ceal the objectives central once ment done after these escape terminates safety: “When temporary reached have been attained. beyond by flight has ended physical control (emphasis in at 77 S.Ct. at Id. pursuit, active immediate conspiratorial scope original). The fugitive aid to complete. After duration of the agreement determines the escape.” aiding his Orth longer acts or statements and whether Cir. 252 F. regarded properly as furtherance can Law and Criminal 1918);4 see Wharton’s 397, 77 conspiracy. Id. (assistance (1957) Procedure § guilty as escape makes one completion of case, escapees had reached In this fact and not as accessory safety escape); place Whar party to the (em (1981) 664-665 had Law David Record Yowiell Record told what ton’s Criminal §§ absence, than rather phasizing departure, passed allegedly Four since said. custody hallmark of legal from escap- escape. The of one whereabouts breach); prison see also United States unknown and the two others were ee were (7th Cir. Randolph, home Bakersfield and were at Shutte’s 1958) aiding (distinguishing Any any pursuit. fleeing immediate law). under Illinois post-escape concealment have, most, con- further assistance could interpretation An concealing. Kathy, stituted 752(a) harboring or con included under § however, with that of- escapee be inconsistent cealing would charged in conspiracy fense. Nor did Thus, statutory distinction. clear encompass harboring. indictment such repeating Kathy’s alleged statement Vow- Further, that there was evidence warning to aid in their iell’s to beyond agreed escapees to leav- assist directly did not further concealment ing prison making geta- confines and conspir objective charged to the primary way refuge. ongoing kind of No to some escape. acy assisting the — to contem- assistance seems have been Kathy’s statement Arguably, furthered conspiracy plated. The central aim by “cov assisting escape of long accomplished had thus before been However, ering Court up” the crime. her brother. Record’s extending disapproved in Krulewitch in The Court’s decision United by completed conspiracies finding implicit 394, 444 Bailey, v. U.S. States U.S. agreements to conceal crime. 336 (1980), upon by relied 443-44, 718-19. The Court at 69 S.Ct. at dissent, does not the district court explained in position reaffirmed and any upon conclusion. 391, cast doubt our States, Grunewald v. United 353 U.S. in from (1957): Bailey stated that 1 931 Court L.Ed.2d continuing in custody is a federal distinction must be made be- vital [A] escapee can held “an liable fur- tween acts of concealment done in custody as well as for objectives criminal to return to therance of the main failure agents may good have Bar- No the assault of the aided 4. Orth remains law. case has over publication escape by hindering ruled it since its immediate active or even criticized ber’s citing agents. pursuit 1918. The most recent case Orth is Unit Barber, Thus, Barber, (D.Del. F.Supp. es- ed States v. 807 even after Orth's Id. at 819. (3d 1969), grounds, assisting escape on other rev’d F.2d between sential distinction There, case, harboring escapees the court wrote: remains intact. In this Barber, allegedly the defendant contrast assuming begun had run- even that Barber warning after the had reached sent a ning away fight begun, True, agents refuge. do very put evidence Brunswick the scene temporarily re- ceased and then seem to have shortly there had not been thereafter when they "in search. But neither were "flight newed their beyond pursuit.” active immediate reasonably Thus, pursuit.” be said although might Nor can been a Brunswick have scene, pursuit. encompass participation "immediate” his to still late-comer departure” government of the “con- initial because relies on several cases society posed by an es- tinuing threat where statements made after the actual prisoner.” 100 S.Ct. at commission of caped Id. the crime were found to the law of This case deals have been furtherance of the conspiracy. cases, however, In escapee, relates to the and not these escape as it the courts deter assisting nor with a mined conspiracy all with that the did in fact en Moreover, compass primary to assist an some further purpose.6 Atkins, Bailey example, relied on Toussie the Court this court held in a robbery case that statements (1970) relating which cautioned profits 25 L.Ed.2d re- to the division of ad labeling continuing, crimes straint as “the conspir missible: criminal aim the policy repose acy embodied in stat- robbery, lest was not to commit the but to profit illegal utes of limitation be violated. Id. at 114- make means.” 307 F.2d policy contrast, repose 90 S.Ct. at 859-60. The at 940. In the criminal aim here implicated escapee is not in the case of an assist an which under Orth large, Congress provided that no ends when the tempo has reached any rary safety. statute of limitations extend to will The evidence does not show a fugitive justice. subsidiary agreement fugi See U.S.C. to harbor the repose policy 3290. But the would be tives nor was such a charged in undermined the indictment. See also United States v. Cir.1981), Walker, continuing deemed offense. 1345-51 denied, rt. ce 1253, escap- Bailey Court’s reliance on the (1982) (holding L.Ed.2d 446 dangerousness why ee’s also makes clear beyond fraud continued submit respect the law of differs with ting warranty illegal prof a false until the escapees and those assist them. As- who its, secured). objective, the main had been sisting escapees is com- plete separate Sears, Similarly, constitutes a crime—harbor- (9th Cir.1981), ing concealing escapees. separa- cert. denied dangers tion reflects the different which sub nom. v. Werner United 1027, 1731, pose-namely, helping the two crimes to U.S. 72 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982), legal custody obstructing jus- this court held that the statement of breach contrast, separate coconspirator parties In to third tice. crime exists innocent turning escaping. prevent revealing robbery in their the for not one’s self after to pointed conspirator. in other As the Court out Bail- admissible the conspiracy sought ey, an can be held liable for not The court found that the returning custody, Savings to “to the and Loan and to U.S. both rob escape successfully.” S.Ct. at that conduct is included Id. is distin Sears First, turning grounds. guishable the crime of Not on several the within proceeded, essentially self in involves the same court there seems to have with one’s danger escaping objection, assumption the that there someone who is out —that supposed legal custody meeting to in of the minds to both rob and be will not was contrast, escape. In is no purpose custody.5 fulfill the of that there contention focusing society” By Bailey post-"fox-hunting do not invite us to and the notion of when our complete respect escap- code. an is rewrite the criminal ee, point inquiry. the dissent misses the of our The issue before us is the crime of assist- clear that the 6. The Krulewitch decision makes ing escape complete, analysis simply continuing subsidiary is and our ob- courts cannot infer conspiracy jective every tracks the federal criminal code’s distinction the crime. in conceal 443-44, harboring. between The dissent’s at 718-19. In some U.S. at 336 cases, however, difficulty really post-crime is our found not with discussion courts have Orth, objectives Bailey applicable conspir- of the but rather with the activities to be main acy. Bailey criminal statutes. But and the ethic of sum, post-es In to assist a Kathy agreed here that Second, nonhearsay if dur only admissible made Sears involved cape concealment. in ing the were in course of and furtherance of the while robbers the made statements changing their clothes and this re conspiracy. To determine whether process of the look, robbery. met, according the In quirement dividing proceeds we must the coconspirators yet Grünewald, had not words, the whether other Krulewitch conspir of their objectives main have achieved the the main of the possessing each some acy namely, accomplished. Here, primary their the ob been — stealing from the bank ject of the loot. to assist of the only means which obtain the prisoners. was the actual accordance Orth, divided loot once Under such ends agreement. conspiratorial passed point im have Cf. (2d Vaugn, 579 F.2d 225 Cir. De Therefore, v. States pursuit. mediate drugs 1978)(statements made after the had statements to David made four Record’s not were admissible distributed been escapees while the agreement between the de absence of temporarily safe Bakersfield were pursue the declarant anoth fendant and during furtherance of the made regarding or to call back er transaction 801(d)(2)(E) conspiracy under Fed.R.Evid. transaction); completed admitting and the district court erred (8th Cir.1976) Moss, 957-58 them. (statements robbery proceeds made after To determine whether Vowiell’s convic made had been divided were tions should be reversed because of denied, conspiracy), cert. course error, we must decide whether admis 50 L.Ed.2d U.S. testimony con sion of David’s violated the (1977). analogous would be Sears frontation clause of sixth amendment.7 had made her statements before hearsay held “if the court has prison grounds left it exception does not fall into an is conclu safety. reached purposes for the sively unreliable Finally, distinguishable by is also Sears accordingly, confrontation clause ... passage of time. reference to verdict must be reversed unless the error Sears, the statements at issue had been beyond a was harmless reasonable doubt.” robbery made within hour actual Bibbero, United States coconspirators had been bank. (9th Cir.1984) (quoting working together right up including to and Cir.1983)), McKinney, 707 F.2d the time when statements were made. denied, rt. ce Here, contrast, the statements were (1985); Bour cf later, any prear- made without (statements 107 at 2782 jaily, admis rangement long escapees, 801(d)(2)(E)pose sible under Rule no con driver, Record, getaway Kathy and Yowiell simply problems frontation clause because gone separate ways. their See also they independent reliability). lack indicia of v. Knigge, 832 F.2d cannot We find on record that (9th Cir.1987) (coconspirators’ state- beyond statements harmless Record’s ments deemed admissible “related a stock, reasonable doubt. As was case plan action free to the McKinney, spoils, accounting Bibbero and the evidence of division of the amended, spoils”) (9th guilt overwhelming was but 846 F.2d 591 formidable important and the statement was Const, provides: The confrontation clause VI. U.S. amend. prosecutions, In all criminal enjoy the accused shall right ... to be confronted with him____ witnesses States, Bibbero, 607, 613, at government’s 402, 405, case. F.2d U.S. (1946)). 584; The evi- 90 L.Ed. McKinney, plain 707 F.2d at 385. It is error for a participation give in the con- district court to per- dence of Vowiell’s instructions that mit the plentiful, jury either circum- to convict the spiracy was but defendant for a crime that charged, on testimo- was not stantial or based because “ Murdoch, may court ny, particularly substantially that of an admit- amend ‘[t]he through the indictment evidence, its ted liar. On the basis of that instructions to ” jury.’ Pazsint, clearly States v. was involved Vowiell (9th Cir.1983) F.2d (quoting beyond Unit- it is not clear reasonable ed States v. Laboratory, Stewart Clinical conspired doubt that he to assist the es- (9th Cir.1981)); see Unit- cape. Kathy Record’s statement to David Combs, ed States v. 762 important proving thus was that Vowiell (9th Cir.1985). knowing conspirator. active Her statement showed he knew about the Here, permitted the instruction escape’s regarding details temporary ref- jury to harboring, convict Vowiell for uge, and that involved more crime with he charged. which was not Nor Moreover, prosecutor than Murdoch. does the evidence of establish heavily relied on this statement both that Vowiell had assisted the questioning closing David Record and prejudicial erroneous instruction was be argument. jury cause it rely perhaps enabled to — entirely even improperly admitted —on jury B. Erroneous instruction hearsay testimony Record, of David prejudicial effect of linked post-escape David Record’s Vowiell to the conceal hearsay testimony compounded by jury ment efforts. The instruction thus error, plain constitutes jury “destroyed erroneous instruction. The district as it right defendant’s charged: court substantial to be tried only charges presented in an indictment Now, the assistance here is at grand Pazsint, jury.” returned escape process. both ends of the (quoting F.2d at 424 Stirone v. United participation assistance and the with re- 270, 273, spect to Mr. the beginning Vowiell (1960)); Bollenbach, see also process, helping arrange (1946) 66 S.Ct. at 404 escape, helping arrange method of (reversing conviction based on instruction transportation, possibly helping to permit jury that would to convict defendant arrange the concealment accessory although after the fact defen transportation had occurred. charged).8 dant not so added). (emphasis argues ap- Vowiell peal jury indepen- that this instruction is an III. ground

dent for reversal. Because defense trial, counsel did not will we CONCLUSION plain

reverse if the instruction constituted affecting rights error substantial admitting court The district erred defendant. Bagby, 451 against hearsay Record’s (9th Cir.1971). F.2d days escape statement made four conviction should not on rest had reached once the

“[A] ambiguous equivocal and instructions to not harmless be- safety. This error was jury Bagby, yond the on a basic issue.” We therefore a reasonable doubt. (citing F.2d at 927 convictions for assist- Bollenbach v. United REVERSE Vowiell’s Furthermore, harboring assisting, challenged creates the 8. we note that the in- crimes of and struction, jury by confounding possibility verdict. the of a non-unanimous two distinct concealing harboring, or the conspiring for to assist amounts to

ing escape new trial. advising REMAND for a evident is to assist escape more effect escape. REMANDED. AND REVERSED court

The relies on United States Orth, (4th Cir.1918). 252 F. Here Rob dissenting: Judge, NOONAN, Circuit Fay escaped prison from the ert federal trenchantly up the sums As court 29, 1916 assist August Atlanta and was him, ob- Darrell Vowiell evidence Sep ed the defendant Charleston Murdock, Rodney for bolt cutters tained The con tember defendant was Bosch, Shelley pris- three Brown and Sylvia fugitive harboring a of assist victed Pleasanton, get arranged for a oners Reversing ing escape. second con arranged car a driver away have viction, the circuit court laid as the down himself, prisoner A at Pleasanton the car. proposition: predicate reversal Vowiell master-minded physical control ended “When has been prison. Four after three from other by flight beyond pursuit, immediate active gotten prisoners had out of Pleasanton The complete.” is Id. at 567. giving them advice on how Vowiellwas still English cited American court and one Nonetheless, escape good. to make their Georgia treatise and one and one North of Vow- the court holds that conviction proposition, case for this Carolina but should reversed. iell be federal cases. did not involve Orth breakout, Murdock, days after the Four escape conspiracy, master-mind of an engaged still in the Brown and Bosch were apparent stranger helped Fay. who On crime of 18 U.S.C. federal alone, distinguishable facts it is from its 751(a). beyond peradventure It is “clear § drawing a our case. But distinction is un custody as de- that necessary. proposition The basic of Orth 751(a) continuing fined in is § squarely Bailey, supra. is overruled can be held liable for and that custody as for defining failure to return to as well Bailey, in the course of es- departure”. his initial United States v. continuing cape custody from federal as a Bailey, offense, Rehnquist Justice observed: (1980). prison- As the L.Ed.2d “Moreover, every federal that has court escaping very it is hard to ers were still held, explic- considered this issue either in advising them why understand 751(a) itly implicitly, or that defines a § committing aiding the crime of or was not continuing offense.” Id. at escape. 18 U.S.C. § 636, citing fifth, eighth, cases from Rehnquist ninth did circuits. Justice intimates that Vowiell was court contra, that not note is but of course wrong Orth he charged with the crime and that vitality Bailey ceased Orth to have really conceal guilty position. prisoners escaped repudiated central ing prisoners after its 1072, “Concealing of 18 U.S.C. violation approv- Ninth Circuit case cited with prisoner.” meaning escaped The natural Michelson, by Bailey al is States v. points persons of “harbor” or “conceal” (9th Bailey, it 559 F.2d 567 Like provide pris or equipment who shelter to a Like Bail- dealt with defense of duress. gotten prison. oner who has outside continuing it that ey concluded is E.g., Eaglin, Bailey, Like it is offense. Id. at 570. Cir.), cert. denied contrary predicate Orth. (1977). L.Ed.2d It is complete notion that an Vowiell, prison, difficult to believe physical pursuit has reflects ceased escapees; concealing and “harbor fox-hunting society. the ethic of When ing” parallel must to “conceal be read as cover, the fox has reached the chase ing.” possibly government While place advising etiquette has no might argue sporting over. able deci- law. It has been in modern Supreme Court. rejected OF THE

sively The PEOPLE VILLAGE OF GAMBELL, April 1986 was still IRA As Alaskan Native Darryl Vowiell sociation, Village People to aid an and of the engaged actively Stebbins, IRA As an Alaskan Native progress. that was still in sociation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, approach casts a doubt The court’s v. accessory rule of that an general law who, knowing person is “a HODEL,* fact Secretary In P. of the Donald committed, renders terior, Depart felony has been Interior, Defendants-Ap him, protect felon in order to ment of aid pellees, his apprehension, or facilitates his hinders Law, ed. C. Criminal escape.” Wharton’s

Torcia, (1978 Supp.) & 1987 33. § Alaska, Inc.; Corporation; Arco Exxon govern principle requires that the normal Corporation; Mobil Shell Oil Com Oil committed; felony prove ment been Texaco, Inc.; pany; and Union Oil com defendant it has been that the knew California, Company Applicants- mitted; has then that the defendant Defendants-Appel as for-Intervention escape. E.g., felon to assisted lees. (9th Cir.1969). Rux, 412 States principle the common law This normal OF The PEOPLE OF THE VILLAGE “If the escapes prison. GAMBELL, rule as to Native IRA As Alaskan Kitlutsisti, sociation, prisoner aid Na person rendered and Nunam Organization, Plain guilty as an acces Intertribal escape, he would be tive tiffs-Appellants, after the fact.” Criminal sory Wharton’s 667. The earlier edition of Whar Law § says the 1371 cited the court ton § HODEL, Secretary of the Inte P. Donald “a the offense of accessory party is not rior, Department the United States only in the of a statute. escape,” absence Interior, Defendants-Appellees, focused on explicitly Here there is a statute Company; Arco Alas escape. Congress has codified Amoco Production aiding an ka, Inc.; Corporation; Exxon Shell law rule accessories af the common as to P, Inc.; Alaska E & Western Sohio persons in the case ter the fact Inc.; Texaco, Company; Petroleum 752(a). escape. 18 U.S.C. The court California, Ap Company of Union Oil the statute. mutilates Defen plicants Intervention district I affirm the decision of the would dants-Appellees. court. 83-3735, 83-3781 and 85-3877. Nos. Appeals, United States Court Ninth Circuit. Argued Dec. 15, 1988.

Submitted Jan. Decided March * Hodel, Fed.R.App.P. pursuant Secretary G. Watt P. the current James Donald Interior, 43(c)(1). Secretary is substituted for former

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Darryl Vowiell

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 8, 1989

Citation: 869 F.2d 1264

Docket Number: 87-1039

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.