Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit, Samuel C. Gardner, J.
McGregor, P. J., and Bashara and Allen, JJ.
1. -- Constitutional Law -- Double Jeopardy -- Single Transaction Tests -- Continuous Time Sequence -- Single Intent.
It must be found that the crimes (1) were committed in a continuous time sequence, and (2) display a single intent and goal in order to determine that the commission of more than one crime is part of a single transaction, and therefore subject to the double jeopardy prohibition.
2. -- Double Jeopardy -- Single Transaction Tests -- Continuous Time Sequence -- Drugs and Narcotics -- Receiving Stolen Goods.
Police responding to a radio call for assistance who encountered a defendant in his apartment with a quantity of marijuana and a stolen revolver in plain view developed the evidence and testimony for both the crimes of possession of marijuana and receiving or concealing stolen property at the time they entered the apartment, thereby establishing a continuous time sequence.
3. Constitutional Law -- -- Double Jeopardy -- Temporal Happenstance -- Single Purpose.
There must have been an essentially unitary criminal episode involving a close unified purpose in the relationship between the crimes and a direct factual connection, not mere temporal happenstance, for multiple prosecutions to be barred by the double jeopardy clause; at least one of the crimes must be of an ongoing nature such that all of the offenses are committed at the same time to achieve a single purpose.
4. Constitutional Law -- -- Double Jeopardy -- Single Transaction Tests -- Temporal Happenstance -- Drugs and Narcotics -- Receiving Stolen Goods.
There was merely temporal happenstance, not a common objective, intent or goal in the commission of the crimes of possession of marijuana and receiving or concealing stolen goods where police answering a trouble call discovered a quantity of marijuana and a stolen revolver in a defendant's apartment, and separate prosecutions for each of these crimes was, therefore, not barred by the double jeopardy provision of the constitution (Const 1963, art 1, § 15).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Bashara
Bruce G. Robertson was charged by information with possession of marijuana. From an order quashing the information the prosecution appeals.
On March 30, 1973, the police responded to a radio call of "shots fired upstairs" at 2131 Fairview, Detroit. The police encountered the defendant-appellee at an apartment at that address. They gained entrance to the apartment and observed a quantity of marijuana and a stolen revolver in plain view.
The appellee was arrested and charged with knowingly or intentionally possessing marijuana, MCLA 335.341(4)(d); MSA 18.1070(41)(4)(d), and receiving or concealing stolen property of a value of $100 or less. MCLA 750.535; MSA 28.803. On April 30, 1973, the appellee was tried and convicted for receiving or concealing stolen property of a value of $100 or less. On August 6, 1974, after numerous adjournments the information charging possession of marijuana was quashed on the ground that both crimes arose out of the same transaction, therefore double jeopardy precluded a trial for the possession of marijuana charge. ...