People v. Nutt
469 Mich. 565, 677 N.W.2d 1 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Michigan Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause, two offenses are not the "same offense" for the purpose of barring successive prosecutions if each offense contains a statutory element that the other does not. This holding reinstates the "same-elements" test (Blockburger test) and overrules the previously established "same transaction" test.
Facts:
- On December 10, 1998, Darrold Smith’s home in Lapeer County was burglarized.
- Four firearms and a bow and arrows were stolen from the Smith residence.
- Defendant Nutt confessed to a Lapeer County detective that she had participated as a getaway driver in the burglary.
- Nutt also admitted that three of the guns stolen from the Smith residence were being concealed underneath a mattress in a cabin she occupied in Oakland County.
- On December 14, 1998, during the execution of a search warrant at the Oakland County cabin, police found three of Smith's stolen firearms hidden under a mattress.
Procedural Posture:
- Nutt was charged in Lapeer County with second-degree home invasion and larceny.
- An arrest warrant was issued in Oakland County charging Nutt with receiving and concealing a stolen firearm.
- Nutt pleaded guilty in Lapeer County Circuit Court (a trial court) to one count of second-degree home invasion.
- Nutt was bound over for trial in Oakland County Circuit Court (a trial court) on the receiving and concealing charge.
- Nutt moved to dismiss the Oakland County charge, arguing it was a successive prosecution barred by double jeopardy under the 'same transaction' test.
- The Oakland County trial court granted Nutt’s motion to dismiss the charge.
- The prosecution (as appellant) appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, allowing the prosecution to proceed.
- Nutt (as appellant) applied for leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court, which granted the appeal and directed the parties to address the validity of the 'same transaction' test.
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 the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 15, bar a subsequent prosecution for an offense that arises from the same criminal transaction but has different statutory elements than the offense for which the defendant was previously convicted?
Opinions:
Majority - Young, J.
No. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Michigan Constitution does not bar a subsequent prosecution for an offense that arises from the same criminal transaction if that offense has different statutory elements than the offense for which the defendant was previously convicted. To determine if two offenses are the 'same offense,' Michigan courts must apply the 'same-elements' test, also known as the Blockburger test. The Court's 1973 decision in People v. White, which established the 'same transaction' test, is overruled because it ignored the original common understanding of the term 'same offense' held by the ratifiers of the 1963 Michigan Constitution. Historical records, including Constitutional Convention debates and the Address to the People, show a clear intent for Michigan's double jeopardy provision to be consistent with both prior Michigan case law and the federal Fifth Amendment, both of which utilized the same-elements test in 1963. The White court improperly substituted a policy-based mandatory joinder rule for a constitutional command. Applying the same-elements test, second-degree home invasion and receiving and concealing a stolen firearm each require proof of a fact that the other does not; therefore, they are not the same offense and the subsequent prosecution is permissible.
Dissenting - Cavanagh, J.
Yes. The subsequent prosecution for receiving and concealing stolen firearms should be barred because it arises from the same transaction as the home invasion conviction. The majority's decision to overrule People v. White and adopt the same-elements test provides inadequate protection against double jeopardy. The same-elements test is not the sole standard used in federal jurisprudence, and the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized its limitations. The purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause is to protect citizens from government harassment and repeated attempts to secure a conviction for a single course of conduct. The same-transaction test better serves this purpose by requiring the prosecution to join at one trial all charges arising from a continuous time sequence that display a single criminal intent and goal. Here, Nutt's actions of participating in the home invasion to steal guns and subsequently concealing those guns were part of one continuous transaction with the single intent of successfully stealing the items. The majority's new rule weakens a core constitutional right and permits government overreach.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant retrenchment of double jeopardy protections in Michigan, overruling thirty years of precedent established by People v. White. By replacing the defendant-protective 'same transaction' test with the narrower federal 'same-elements' (Blockburger) test, the court gives prosecutors substantially more discretion to bring separate, successive prosecutions for different crimes arising from a single criminal episode. The ruling aligns Michigan's constitutional standard with the federal baseline, making it more difficult for defendants to claim double jeopardy protection against multiple trials. This case is a prominent example of the Michigan Supreme Court's turn toward an originalist interpretive methodology, focusing on the ratifiers' intent in 1963 rather than evolving policy considerations.
