People v. Jankowski
1980 Mich. LEXIS 214, 408 Mich. 79, 289 N.W.2d 674 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Michigan's double jeopardy clause, a defendant cannot receive multiple convictions for a greater offense and lesser included offenses when the convictions arise from a single criminal act and the factual proofs necessary to convict on the greater offense are sufficient to convict on the lesser offenses.
Facts:
- An accomplice of John Jankowski, who was masked and carrying a revolver, entered a gasoline station.
- The station attendant, upon seeing the armed man, fled to an inner office, locked the door, and telephoned the police.
- The accomplice took the station's locked cash register, which contained approximately $400.
- Jankowski was waiting in a car with two other men.
- The accomplice brought the cash register to the waiting car, where it was pried open and the money was divided among the four occupants, including Jankowski.
Procedural Posture:
- John Jankowski was tried by a jury in a Michigan trial court.
- The jury returned guilty verdicts on charges of armed robbery, larceny over $100, larceny in a building, and conspiracy to commit armed robbery.
- The trial court sentenced Jankowski to concurrent prison terms for each conviction.
- Jankowski, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed all four convictions.
- The Supreme Court of Michigan granted leave to appeal to review the multiple 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 convicting a defendant of armed robbery, larceny over $100, and larceny in a building for a single act of taking a cash register from a gas station violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
Opinions:
Majority - Ryan, J.
Yes. Convicting the defendant of armed robbery and the two larceny charges for a single act violates the protection against multiple punishments for the same offense. The court's double jeopardy analysis focuses on whether, based on the specific facts of the case, the lesser offense is included within the greater offense. Here, the taking of the cash register (worth over $100) from the building constituted the larcenies. The addition of an assault with a weapon to accomplish that taking elevated the crime to armed robbery. Therefore, it was factually and logically impossible to be guilty of this armed robbery without also being guilty of the underlying larcenies. Because the proofs required to convict for armed robbery necessarily established guilt for the lesser larceny offenses, the larceny charges are lesser included offenses of the armed robbery for double jeopardy purposes. The proper remedy is to affirm the conviction on the highest charge (armed robbery) and vacate the convictions on the lesser included charges.
Analysis:
This case establishes a fact-based test for identifying lesser included offenses under Michigan's double jeopardy clause, moving beyond a strict statutory elements test. The decision clarifies that the key question is whether the evidence presented at trial for the greater offense necessarily proves the lesser offense. This precedent prevents prosecutors from 'stacking' charges arising from a single criminal act to secure multiple convictions. It also provides a clear remedy for such violations: vacating the lesser convictions while upholding the conviction for the most serious offense, thereby avoiding the need for a new trial.
