Milanovich v. United States
5 L. Ed. 2d 773, 365 U.S. 551, 1961 U.S. LEXIS 1495 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a federal statute criminalizing both the theft of government property and the receipt of that same property, a defendant cannot be convicted and punished for both offenses. The trial judge must instruct the jury that it can convict the defendant of one offense or the other, but not both.
Facts:
- Virginia Milanovich and her husband, Mike Milanovich, acted as accessories by transporting three accomplices to a U.S. Naval Base commissary.
- The plan was for the accomplices to break into the commissary and steal government funds.
- The Milanovichs were to serve as the getaway drivers but departed from the scene before the accomplices returned.
- After stealing several thousand dollars, the accomplices buried the money when they could not locate the getaway car.
- Seventeen days after the theft, Virginia Milanovich went to the location where the money was buried and took possession of a portion of it.
- Subsequently, FBI agents discovered a significant amount of the stolen currency in a suitcase in Virginia Milanovich's home during a legal search.
Procedural Posture:
- Mike and Virginia Milanovich were tried in a Federal District Court (trial court) on charges under 18 U.S.C. § 641.
- Virginia Milanovich was indicted on one count of larceny and a separate count of receiving and concealing the stolen currency.
- The trial judge denied a motion to require the prosecution to elect between the counts and subsequently did not instruct the jury that it could only convict on one of the two counts.
- The jury convicted Virginia Milanovich on both the larceny and receiving counts, and Mike Milanovich on the larceny count.
- The Milanovichs (appellants) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals set aside Virginia Milanovich's sentence for receiving but affirmed her conviction and ten-year sentence for larceny. It affirmed Mike Milanovich's conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment against Virginia Milanovich.
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 trial judge commit reversible error by failing to instruct a jury that it cannot convict a defendant for both stealing government property and receiving that same stolen property under 18 U.S.C. § 641?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. A trial judge commits reversible error by failing to instruct the jury that it cannot convict a defendant for both larceny and receiving under 18 U.S.C. § 641. Following the reasoning of Heflin v. United States, Congress intended the statute to reach two separate groups of wrongdoers—the thieves themselves and those who receive the stolen goods—not to multiply the offenses for the person who stole the property. When a jury is not properly instructed and returns guilty verdicts on both counts, a reviewing court cannot know which verdict the jury would have chosen. Simply setting aside the sentence on one count is insufficient to cure the prejudice, as it usurps the jury's function of determining guilt and the judge's function of sentencing on a proper verdict. Therefore, the conviction must be set aside and the case remanded for a new trial.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No. The trial court's actions did not constitute reversible error. The majority misapplies Heflin, which concerned cumulative sentencing, not the propriety of jury convictions on multiple counts. The common-law rule that a thief cannot receive from himself does not apply here because Virginia Milanovich's actions constituted two clearly severed transactions, separated by seventeen days. Her role as an accessory to the theft and her subsequent act of taking possession of the booty were distinct behaviors. The jury was correct to find her guilty of both, and the proper remedy was the one applied by the Court of Appeals: vacating the sentence for the receiving count to prevent cumulative punishment, while leaving the valid larceny conviction intact.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
No. The failure to provide the instruction was not a reversible error and caused no prejudice. The evidence overwhelmingly proved Virginia Milanovich's guilt on both counts, and the facts supporting each charge were intertwined. The majority's holding creates a dilemma by requiring a jury to return a 'false verdict' of not guilty on one count, even if the facts support guilt. The more practical solution is to allow the jury to return verdicts on all factually supported counts and have the trial judge resolve any legal issues of multiplicity at sentencing by imposing punishment on only one count. Furthermore, the petitioner did not properly object to the jury charge on this specific ground at trial.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the federal prohibition against convictions for both stealing and receiving the same property is not merely a rule against cumulative sentencing, but a substantive limitation on what a jury may find. It establishes that these are alternative, not concurrent, offenses, requiring a jury to choose between them. The case significantly impacts trial procedure, mandating specific jury instructions in such cases to avoid reversible error. This holding forces prosecutors to strategize which charge is more provable and prevents the potential prejudice of a defendant being labeled guilty of two crimes for what Congress intended to be a single, punishable course of conduct.
