Our Court of Appeals reversed a felony conviction for hindering apprehension (PC 38.05)determining that facts did not prove that the defendant "knew the person harbored or concealed was wanted, convicted, or charged with a felony offense". (Villarreal v. State, 13th Court of Appeals, 12-09-04 opinion) I cannot find this as an element of the statute and find no case authority for this position. I see that the TDCAA charging manual has this element in the second option under each section but I don't see why. We have requested rehearing on this issue but this same element is problematic in other cases that are pending indictment. Any ideas or help?

To constitute a felony is not that what subsection (c) says? What else would "and the person charged . . . knew" mean? Such knowledge is not an element of the misdemeanor offense.

Hindering in this setting is one of the handful of times law enforcement can know beyond doubt the mental state of an actor. Absent some special circumstance I think it is always wise for officers to make it clear they are holding a felony warrant for the suspect. If a subject conceals the felon or otherwise hinders the officers, they do it on notice.

Just to restart an old thread:

Mom is made aware that son is wanted on a "directive to apprehend" (it was a felony grade offense and son is a juvenile).

About 10 months later mom's home is burglarized. Daughter tells officers that MJ found in one bedroom belongs to son (same one wanted on the "directive to apprehend").

Necessary witness at trial on hindering apprehension would be daughter who said son was living at the home, and of course, officers who made mom aware son was wanted.

Do I have a case against mom?

Are you saying the son was present (concealed) in the home at the time the police were asking about him? If the only issue is a failure to reveal information about where he was "living" (or about where he might return) causation gets pretty tenuous (to me). Subsection (a)(2) can be interpreted very broadly depending on the temporal context of "avoid" or "escape" and how close the police were to "getting their man" at the time.

Thanks to all. After reading your comments and looking at the case I punted. All I have is the notice given in Feb. no evidence of any followups, and then the burglary in Nov. I know she was probably hiding him, but I don't feel I can overcome the time factor.