Essay About Trial Court’S Ruling And D. Tomlinson

T-Fihrr-C for Schramm V. State
To:  D. Tomlinson / R. Stork / S. SanfilippoFrom:  R. ZmudaDate: September 9, 2013Re:  T-FIHRR-C for Schramm v. StateEven though he did eventually turn in the offender, by assisting the offender at any point in time, the landlord was guilty as an accessory after the fact. Schramm v. State, 374 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).In Schramm, the landlord became aware of the offenders’ committing of a murder, but proceeded on helping him flee to Atlanta by driving him to the airport late at night to avoid taking a polygraph test.  Id. The landlord also gave the offender $60.00.  Id. The landlord was charged with both accessory after the fact as well as perjury, being found guilty of the former and not guilty on the latter.  Id.The issue in Schramm is if ones’ giving aid to an offender avoid detecting from the authorities, and then subsequently giving up the whereabouts of the offender, constitutes accessory after the fact.  Id.  The court affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Schramm was guilty of accessory after the fact. Id.        A person is an accessory after the fact where he maintains, assists, or gives an offender any aid, knowing that he committed a felony with the intent that he shall avoid or escape detection, arrest, trial, or punishment. § 777.03 Fla. Stat. The Court found that by helping the offender leave town to avoid his polygraph test, and since he had known the offender had committed a crime, Schramm obviously aided the offender and is guilty of accessory after the fact.  Id. at 1044. The Court also found that the fact that he had subsequently told the police of the offender’s location, this fact was not relevant to whether or not he had committed accessory after the fact.  Id.