He may have enjoyed it so much that he decided to repeat the experience for its pure pleasure. Whether defendant's attempts were merely a part of a constant hijacking objective or were a substantial departure from that objective is not for us to decide. The critical point for us is that the issue was equivocal enough for a negotiated determination. There are potential constructs that do not fit mandatory consecutive sentences. The law's machinery does not prevent the State, given the facts of this case, from negotiating a plea that surrenders a construct necessary to produce mandatory consecutive sentences.
Prosecutors routinely negotiate disputed facts.
They abide crime versions markedly different from their true view of events in order to achieve plea-bargained dispositions. Under proper circumstances, the law tolerates fact-based concessions as a legitimate negotiation tool. In this case, the State decided, at defendant's behest, to abide a version of defendant's crimes that allowed for concurrent sentences. The State chose to accept the fact that defendant developed a new objective, apart from the hijacking, when he turned to his murderous ways. Since the constancy of defendant's criminal objective was uncertain, the State legitimately relinquished one plausible alternative.