State v. Chism
436 So.2d 464 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for being an accessory after the fact requires proof of only general criminal intent, not specific intent, that the offender may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment. This intent can be inferred from circumstantial evidence that excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Facts:
- Brian Chism, while impersonating a female, was in a car with Tony Duke when they picked up Chism's uncle, Ira Lloyd.
- The trio went to see Lloyd's ex-wife, Gloria Lloyd, with whom Ira Lloyd got into an argument.
- Ira Lloyd stabbed Gloria multiple times with a knife while outside the car.
- Ira Lloyd then pushed the bleeding Gloria into the front seat of the car.
- Under Ira Lloyd's direction, Duke drove to a remote location called Willow Point.
- At Willow Point, again at Lloyd's direction, Chism and Duke removed Gloria from the car and placed her in high grass, leaving her there with Ira Lloyd.
- After being dropped off, Chism went to a friend's house, changed his clothes, and placed the blood-stained women's clothing he had been wearing into a trash bin.
- Chism went to the police station with his mother to report the incident at approximately 1:15 a.m., after the preceding events had occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana prosecuted Brian Chism in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- Chism waived his right to a jury and was tried by a judge.
- The trial judge found Chism guilty of being an accessory after the fact.
- The court sentenced Chism to three years in prison, with two and one-half years of the sentence suspended.
- Chism appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, arguing insufficiency of the evidence.
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 series of actions and inactions, including assisting in moving a dying victim, failing to report the crime immediately, and discarding blood-stained clothing, provide sufficient circumstantial evidence for a rational trier of fact to find the general intent required for a conviction as an accessory after the fact?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dennis
Yes. A defendant's actions and inactions can provide sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the general intent required for a conviction as an accessory after the fact. The court clarified that being an accessory after the fact is a general intent crime, meaning the state only needs to prove the defendant believed it was substantially certain their aid would help the felon avoid punishment, not that they had the specific goal of doing so. The court found that a rational trier of fact could infer this intent from the totality of Chism's conduct: his failure to protest or flee, his assistance in moving the victim's body without being directly threatened, his delay in seeking help for the victim, and his act of discarding his bloody clothes. These facts, when viewed together, sufficiently excluded the reasonable hypothesis of innocence, such as acting solely out of fear.
Concurring - Justice Blanche
Justice Blanche concurred to state that he was abandoning his prior view expressed in State v. Moore. He now agrees that Louisiana's statutory circumstantial evidence rule (excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence) is not a separate, higher standard of review but is part of the broader constitutional inquiry under Jackson v. Virginia, which asks whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Concurring - Justice Lemmon
Justice Lemmon concurred with the majority's conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. However, he expressed that he does not necessarily agree with the majority's holding that accessory after the fact is not a specific intent crime, indicating a reservation on that specific point of law.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Dixon
No. The evidence amounted to a finding of guilt by association rather than proof of criminal intent. The dissent argued that the majority relied heavily on Chism's inaction (e.g., failure to protest) and that his affirmative actions (moving the body, changing clothes) did not sufficiently prove an intent to help Lloyd avoid arrest, trial, or punishment. The dissent suggests these actions could be explained by other motivations, such as fear or shock, and thus did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying two key aspects of Louisiana criminal law. First, it explicitly re-categorized the crime of accessory after the fact from a specific intent crime to a general intent crime, lowering the prosecutorial burden for proving the defendant's mental state. Second, it provided a clear methodology for appellate review of convictions based on circumstantial evidence, integrating the state's 'reasonable hypothesis of innocence' standard (La.R.S. 15:438) within the federal due process standard of Jackson v. Virginia. This integration treats the state rule as a tool for applying the Jackson standard rather than a separate, more stringent test, influencing how appellate courts evaluate the sufficiency of evidence in such cases.
