Bowen v. State
2001 WL 630488, 791 So. 2d 44 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To convict a person as an accessory after the fact, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: 1) the principal committed the underlying felony, 2) the defendant had actual knowledge that the specific felony was committed, and 3) the defendant thereafter gave aid to the principal with the specific intent to help the principal avoid detection, arrest, or punishment.
Facts:
- Bernice Bowen lived with her boyfriend, Hank Carr, and knew he used aliases to evade an outstanding marijuana trafficking warrant from Ohio.
- On the morning of May 19, 1998, Bowen's four-year-old son, Joey, was fatally shot by a rifle inside their shared apartment.
- Bowen and Carr took the dying child to a nearby fire station, where Carr identified himself to police as "Joseph Bennett."
- After Joey was pronounced dead, Carr fled the fire station, went back to the apartment, and was apprehended by police.
- While Carr was in custody, police questioned Bowen, who identified Carr as "Joseph Bennett" and did not volunteer that he often carried a handcuff key.
- Around 2:00 p.m., while being transported by Detectives Ricky Childers and Randy Bell, Carr used a handcuff key to escape, and he shot and killed both detectives.
- Around 2:30 p.m., while fleeing, Carr shot and killed Florida Highway Patrol Trooper James Crooks.
- After being informed by police that Carr had killed two detectives, Bowen was asked to help identify him but provided various names and withheld his full name, "Hank Carr," for approximately 90 minutes before providing it in a taped statement.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida charged Bernice Bowen in a state trial court as an accessory after the fact to five felonies committed by Hank Carr: manslaughter, escape, and three counts of first-degree murder.
- A jury found Bowen guilty of the charges.
- Bowen (Appellant) appealed her convictions to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence sufficient to convict a defendant as an accessory after the fact to multiple felonies where the State must prove the defendant had actual knowledge of each specific underlying felony at the time they rendered aid?
Opinions:
Majority - Altenbernd, Judge
No. To be convicted as an accessory after the fact, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual knowledge of the specific underlying felony at the time they rendered aid with the intent to help the offender escape punishment. The court found the evidence insufficient for some charges and fatally prejudiced for others. Regarding the manslaughter of Joey, the State failed to prove two elements. First, it did not present sufficient evidence to rebut the reasonable hypothesis that the shooting was an accident, meaning it failed to prove the underlying felony of manslaughter occurred. Second, even if a manslaughter occurred, the State failed to prove Bowen had actual knowledge that Carr's actions constituted a crime rather than a tragic accident. Regarding the murder of Trooper Crooks, the State failed to prove Bowen had actual knowledge of this specific crime when she rendered aid. The information provided to her was equivocal, with one officer mentioning three deaths but another immediately after stating only two had occurred. Therefore, she could not have formed the requisite knowledge of this third, separate murder. Regarding the escape and the murders of the two detectives, the court found the evidence was legally sufficient for a jury to find Bowen guilty. After being told of these specific crimes, she withheld Carr's correct name, which a jury could interpret as an act of aid intended to help him escape. However, the convictions on these counts must be reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial was unfairly prejudiced by the inclusion of the manslaughter charge. The State's focus on Bowen's knowledge of the handcuff key and arguments that she could have prevented the officers' deaths improperly shifted the jury's focus from her legal culpability after the fact to her moral responsibility for failing to prevent the crimes.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the stringent knowledge requirement for accessory after the fact liability in Florida. It establishes that the prosecution must prove the defendant knew about the specific felony they are accused of assisting, not just a general suspicion of wrongdoing or knowledge of a different crime. The decision sharply distinguishes between moral responsibility for failing to prevent a crime and legal culpability for actively aiding a felon after a crime is complete. This precedent limits the state's ability to 'bootstrap' weaker charges onto stronger ones and cautions courts to prevent emotional prejudice from overwhelming the specific elements of the charged offense.
