By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
Assault with intent to do great bodily harm and felonious assault arising out of the same conduct does not violate double jeopardy protections because the assault with intent statute authorizes multiple punishments for the same offense, a split Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
In an opinion written by Justice Brian Zahra, the high court in a 5-2 decision reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent it addressed the mutually exclusive verdicts doctrine in People v. McKewen (MSC Docket No. 158869). The majority of Zahra, Justice David Viviano, Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justice Elizabeth Welch further reinstated the defendant’s felonious assault conviction vacated by the appellate court.
Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, joined in dissent by Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, wrote that she disagreed statute compelled the conclusion that multiple punishment convictions for the crime of assault with intent and felonious assault from the same conduct were authorized by the Legislature.
The case involved a double-jeopardy argument in relation to an assault with intent to do great bodily harm conviction. The crime arose from a fight at a party. The victim’s chest bled from the altercation and the treating physician determined he had been stabbed although no one at the party had seen the defendant with a knife during the fight.
The trial court convicted the defendant with both assault with intent and felonious assault with concurrent sentences.
The Court of Appeals, however, vacated the felonious assault conviction because, in a case involving a single assault, convictions for both assault with intent and felonious assault were mutually exclusive.
The high court was asked to determine whether conviction for both assault with intent to do great bodily harm and felonious assault violates the constitutional double-jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.
Zahra wrote that they did not.
“Read in isolation, these conflicting intent requirements might generally signal a double-jeopardy violation. But the AWIGBH statute provides that ‘this section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law arising out of the same conduct as the violation of this section.’ This language is specifically designed to authorize multiple punishments like those at issue in this case. Felonious assault constitutes ‘any other violation of law’ arising out of the same conduct as that which led to the defendant’s AWIGBH conviction. We therefore hold that under the plain language of the pertinent offenses, the defendant has not established a double-jeopardy violation.”
Zahra added that the Court of Appeals erred by vacating the felonious assault conviction on the basis of mutual exclusivity.
“In convicting defendant of felonious assault, the jury never found that the defendant acted without the intent to inflict great bodily harm; a guilty verdict for that offense was therefore not mutually exclusive to the defendant’s guilty verdict for AWIGBH, where the jury affirmatively found that the defendant acted with intent to do great bodily harm,” Zahra wrote.
In dissent, Clement wrote that double jeopardy jurisprudence forbids multiple punishments for the same offense when the Legislature expresses a clear intention in the plain language of statute to prohibit multiple punishments.
“This case calls on us to answer whether the Legislature spoke with such clarity in enacting the assault with the intent to commit great bodily harm (AWIGBH) and felonious-assault statutes,” Clement wrote. “Because the Legislature offered a clear indication by including language in the felonious-assault statute that makes conviction under the statute incompatible with a simultaneous AWIGBH conviction, the defendant’s dual convictions violate constitutional double–jeopardy protections.”
Clement added that a close reading of the disclaimer in MCL 750.84(3) does not compel a different result.
She and Bolden would have vacated the less conviction of felonious assault in this case.
Gongwer News Service
Assault with intent to do great bodily harm and felonious assault arising out of the same conduct does not violate double jeopardy protections because the assault with intent statute authorizes multiple punishments for the same offense, a split Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
In an opinion written by Justice Brian Zahra, the high court in a 5-2 decision reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent it addressed the mutually exclusive verdicts doctrine in People v. McKewen (MSC Docket No. 158869). The majority of Zahra, Justice David Viviano, Justice Richard Bernstein, Justice Megan Cavanagh and Justice Elizabeth Welch further reinstated the defendant’s felonious assault conviction vacated by the appellate court.
Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement, joined in dissent by Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, wrote that she disagreed statute compelled the conclusion that multiple punishment convictions for the crime of assault with intent and felonious assault from the same conduct were authorized by the Legislature.
The case involved a double-jeopardy argument in relation to an assault with intent to do great bodily harm conviction. The crime arose from a fight at a party. The victim’s chest bled from the altercation and the treating physician determined he had been stabbed although no one at the party had seen the defendant with a knife during the fight.
The trial court convicted the defendant with both assault with intent and felonious assault with concurrent sentences.
The Court of Appeals, however, vacated the felonious assault conviction because, in a case involving a single assault, convictions for both assault with intent and felonious assault were mutually exclusive.
The high court was asked to determine whether conviction for both assault with intent to do great bodily harm and felonious assault violates the constitutional double-jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.
Zahra wrote that they did not.
“Read in isolation, these conflicting intent requirements might generally signal a double-jeopardy violation. But the AWIGBH statute provides that ‘this section does not prohibit a person from being charged with, convicted of, or punished for any other violation of law arising out of the same conduct as the violation of this section.’ This language is specifically designed to authorize multiple punishments like those at issue in this case. Felonious assault constitutes ‘any other violation of law’ arising out of the same conduct as that which led to the defendant’s AWIGBH conviction. We therefore hold that under the plain language of the pertinent offenses, the defendant has not established a double-jeopardy violation.”
Zahra added that the Court of Appeals erred by vacating the felonious assault conviction on the basis of mutual exclusivity.
“In convicting defendant of felonious assault, the jury never found that the defendant acted without the intent to inflict great bodily harm; a guilty verdict for that offense was therefore not mutually exclusive to the defendant’s guilty verdict for AWIGBH, where the jury affirmatively found that the defendant acted with intent to do great bodily harm,” Zahra wrote.
In dissent, Clement wrote that double jeopardy jurisprudence forbids multiple punishments for the same offense when the Legislature expresses a clear intention in the plain language of statute to prohibit multiple punishments.
“This case calls on us to answer whether the Legislature spoke with such clarity in enacting the assault with the intent to commit great bodily harm (AWIGBH) and felonious-assault statutes,” Clement wrote. “Because the Legislature offered a clear indication by including language in the felonious-assault statute that makes conviction under the statute incompatible with a simultaneous AWIGBH conviction, the defendant’s dual convictions violate constitutional double–jeopardy protections.”
Clement added that a close reading of the disclaimer in MCL 750.84(3) does not compel a different result.
She and Bolden would have vacated the less conviction of felonious assault in this case.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
