People v. Carter
330 N.W.2d 314 (1982) 415 Mich. 558 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant may be convicted of both conspiracy to commit a crime and aiding and abetting the commission of that same substantive crime without violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, as the two offenses are legally distinct.
Facts:
- Alvin Carter, a prison guard, was acquainted with Edward Kimble, a former inmate, and was a family friend of Peggie Johnson, an employee at a Consumers Power Company office.
- Approximately one to two months before the incident, Carter visited Johnson's workplace and inquired about the employees' lunch hours.
- On December 18, 1975, Carter and Kimble met and discussed a plan to extort money from Johnson's workplace.
- That same evening, Carter went to Kimble's hotel room and wrote a note threatening Johnson's three sons unless she provided money.
- Kimble's girlfriend, Diane Potter, then copied Carter's note to prevent Johnson from recognizing Carter's handwriting.
- On December 19, 1975, Kimble presented the threatening note to Johnson at her workplace, and she complied by giving him $1,365.
- After the extortion, Kimble met with Carter, gave him the money, and Carter divided the proceeds.
Procedural Posture:
- Alvin D. Carter was charged in a Michigan trial court with aiding and abetting unarmed robbery, conspiracy to commit unarmed robbery, aiding and abetting extortion, and conspiracy to commit extortion.
- A jury convicted Carter on all four counts.
- Carter appealed his convictions to the Michigan Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion but reversed the convictions related to unarmed robbery on double jeopardy grounds.
- Carter, as appellant, was granted leave to appeal his remaining two convictions to the Michigan Supreme Court, the state's highest court; the people, as appellee, did not challenge the reversal of the robbery-related convictions.
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 conviction for both aiding and abetting the commission of extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
Opinions:
Majority - Moody, Jr., J. (adopted by the Court)
No. A conviction for both aiding and abetting the commission of extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion does not violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The court's reasoning rests on several grounds. First, Wharton's Rule, which bars a conspiracy conviction when the target crime necessarily requires two participants, does not apply because the target offense is extortion, which can be committed by a single individual; aiding and abetting is merely a theory of liability, not the substantive crime itself. Second, under the federal Blockburger test, the offenses are distinct because each requires proof of an element the other does not: conspiracy requires an agreement, while aiding and abetting requires the commission of the substantive offense. Third, under Michigan's broader, fact-based double jeopardy analysis, the convictions are also permissible because proof of one crime did not necessarily establish the other. The jury could find Carter aided and abetted based on his active participation (writing the note, dividing the money) without necessarily finding a prior agreement, and conversely, it could find a conspiracy existed without finding the overt acts necessary for aiding and abetting liability. Aiding and abetting the crime was not a sine qua non for the conspiracy, and the crimes are factually and theoretically independent.
Dissenting - Kavanagh, J.
Yes. The conviction for conspiracy should be set aside because when the substantive crime of extortion was successfully carried out, the conspiracy merged into the completed offense. The dissent argues that nothing was added to the substantive crime by the conspiracy to commit it, implying the two charges constitute a single criminal act for punishment purposes.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle in Michigan law that conspiracy and aiding and abetting are distinct offenses that can be punished separately, even when they arise from the same criminal transaction. The decision emphasizes that conspiracy targets the special societal danger of group planning, while aiding and abetting punishes active participation in the consummated crime. The analysis is significant for distinguishing the federal 'elements-only' double jeopardy test from Michigan's broader 'factual' double jeopardy test, demonstrating that even under the more protective state standard, these two offenses are not considered the 'same offense' if proof of one does not necessarily entail proof of the other based on the evidence presented at trial.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Carter