Sherron v. State
2006 WL 3200966, 959 So. 2d 30 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person can be convicted as an accessory after the fact for an act committed with both a lawful and an unlawful purpose, so long as the unlawful intent to help a felon avoid punishment was more than a minimal part of their motivation.
Facts:
- Xavier Sherron, the stepfather of a 13-year-old girl named Jane, began having sexual intercourse with her.
- As a result of the statutory rape, Jane became pregnant.
- After Jane's pregnancy was discovered, her mother, Charlotte Sherron, learned that her husband Xavier was responsible.
- Family members, including Xavier Sherron's brother and Charlotte Sherron's aunt and uncle, suggested that the situation be kept secret to avoid legal consequences for Xavier and the loss of custody for Charlotte.
- Charlotte Sherron drove Jane to an abortion clinic in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, where she consented to and assisted with the abortion procedure.
- Charlotte Sherron later admitted to police that she continued to live with her husband after the rape because she needed his income to pay bills and was told by relatives not to inform the police.
- The crime was only reported after Jane confided in another relative, who then told Jane's grandmother, Alice Howard.
Procedural Posture:
- Xavier Sherron was indicted, tried, and convicted of statutory rape in a Mississippi trial court.
- Charlotte Sherron was indicted in the Lowndes County Circuit Court as an accessory after the fact to Xavier Sherron's crime of statutory rape.
- Sherron's attorney filed a pre-trial demurrer to the indictment, arguing it criminalized a constitutional right; the demurrer was reportedly denied by the trial court, but no order was entered.
- A jury in the Lowndes County Circuit Court convicted Charlotte Sherron of being an accessory after the fact.
- Charlotte Sherron, the appellant, appealed her conviction to the Mississippi Court of Appeals, where the State of Mississippi was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's act of assisting her minor daughter in obtaining a legal abortion constitute the crime of accessory after the fact if one of the defendant's intents was to conceal her husband's felony, even if she also had a lawful intent to help her daughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Southwick, J.
Yes. A conviction for accessory after the fact can be sustained even if the defendant had a lawful motive for her actions, so long as she also possessed the requisite criminal intent to help a felon avoid punishment. The court found that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed for a jury to find that Charlotte Sherron acted with the criminal intent to help her husband, Xavier Sherron, avoid arrest and prosecution for statutory rape. This evidence included her failure to report the crime, her stated financial dependence on her husband, and her heeding the advice of relatives to keep the matter secret. The court declined to rule on whether the prosecution placed an 'undue burden' on the daughter's constitutional right to an abortion, finding that the defendant had waived this argument by raising it in a pre-trial motion but then abandoning it in post-trial motions and on appeal.
Concurring - Roberts, J.
Yes. The conviction should be affirmed, and even if the constitutional issue had not been waived, the prosecution does not place an 'undue burden' on the minor's right to an abortion. The state has a legitimate interest in prosecuting individuals who aid felons, and this interest is not an unconstitutional obstacle to abortion rights. The daughter's right to an abortion does not create immunity for a third party, like her mother, to commit the separate felony of being an accessory after the fact, especially when the evidence showed the mother's intent was also to protect her husband for her own financial benefit.
Analysis:
This case establishes in Mississippi that a defendant can be found guilty of a specific-intent crime even when acting with mixed motives. The court's adoption of the 'more than de minimis' standard for the criminal intent clarifies that a co-existing lawful motive does not serve as an absolute defense. By finding the significant constitutional issue regarding abortion rights waived, the court strategically avoided a major clash between criminal law and reproductive rights. This decision leaves open the critical question of whether prosecuting a parent for consenting to a minor's abortion under these circumstances constitutes an 'undue burden' on that right, creating uncertainty for future cases with similar facts.
Unlock the full brief for Sherron v. State