Case Name: PEOPLE v. McDOWELL
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1978-09-20
Citations: 85 Mich. App. 697
Docket Number: Docket No. 77-2742
Parties: PEOPLE v McDOWELL
Judges: Before: Bashara, P. J., and Beasley and D. E. Holbrook, Jr., JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 85
Pages: 697–713

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v McDOWELL
Docket No. 77-2742.
Submitted December 20, 1977, at Detroit.
Decided September 20, 1978.
Leave to appeal applied for.
William G. McDowell was arrested and charged with assault with intent to commit murder and with possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Both charges are based on the same alleged facts — that the defendant fired a gun through the door of a van occupied by eight off-duty police officers, one of whom was wounded in the foot. The defendant’s motion to quash one or both counts or, alternatively, to compel the prosecutor to elect between them was denied, Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Albert P. Horrigan, J. The defendant appeals by leave granted, claiming that he would be placed twice in jeopardy for the same offense by having to defend against prosecution on both counts. Held:
An examination of the felony-firearm statute unequivocally demonstrates the intent of the Legislature to define and prescribe punishment for an offense separate and distinct from the substantive felonies to which it applies. The felony-firearm statute is inoperable only if viewed as a separate distinct felony statute. The statute should be viewed as a sentence enhancement or sentence augmenting statute. The trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to quash was proper.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law § 332.
21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 166.
Limitations under double jeopardy clause of Fifth Amendment upon state criminal prosecutions — Supreme Court cases. 25 L Ed 2d 968.
[2, 3, 5, 6, 9] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 182, 185, 187-189.
Due process as violated by successive state trials for single offense or for multiple offenses of the same character, committed simultaneously — Supreme Court cases. 2 L Ed 2d 2020.
[4, 5] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes § 145.
[5] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes §§ 294, 295.
[7] 16 Am Jur 2d, Constitutional Law § 137 et seq.
73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes § 37.
[8] 73 Am Jur 2d, Statutes § 200.
[10] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 175, 176.
[11, 12] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 188, 189.
[13, 14] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 185-187, 189, 212.
[15] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law §§ 165, 166.
Affirmed. (Beasley, J., concurred in result.)
D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J., concurred in the result but he would hold that the double jeopardy issue is prematurely raised because the defendant has not been placed in jeopardy once, let alone twice, at this point. The mere fact that the defendant is charged with both offenses does not put him twice in jeopardy.
He believes that if the defendant were ultimately convicted of both offenses- there would be a double jeopardy violation because assault with intent to commit murder is a lesser included offense of the felony-firearm crime under the circumstances of this case and the defendant may not be convicted of both the lesser and the greater offense. He would hold that a statute may not deprive a citizen of fundamental constitutional rights, no matter how clear the legislative intent.
Opinion of Bashara, P. J.
1. Constitutional Law — Double Jeopardy.
Michigan’s double jeopardy provision is coterminous in operational scope with that of its Federal counterpart.
2. Constitutional Law — Double Jeopardy — Due Process — Lesser Included Offenses — Fundamental Fairness.
Standards for a determination of the "same offense’’ for double jeopardy purposes require an examination of each statutory offense to determine whether one requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not; under this theory, merger takes place where one of two offenses charged is a necessarily lesser included offense of the other and convictions for both, arising out of the same act, are constitutionally impermissible.
3. Constitutional Law — Double Jeopardy — Felony-Firearm— Necessarily Included Lesser Offenses.
Convictions of both felony-ñrearm and the underlying felony violate constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy in that the underlying felony will always be a necessarily included lesser offense of felony-ñrearm; however, this does not mean that the Court of Appeals ñnds the felony-ñrearm statute, when considered in its entirety, unconstitutional.
4. Statutes — Statutory Construction — Legislative Intent — Letter of Law — Spirit of Law.
The primary rule governing statutory construction is ñrst and foremost to ascertain and give effect to the manifest intent of the Legislature; where the real design of the Legislature in ordaining a statute, although not precisely expressed, is yet plainly perceivable or may be ascertained with reasonable certainty, the language of the statute must be given such a construction as will carry that design into effect, even though, in so doing, the exact letter of the law will be sacriñced, or though the construction be, indeed, contrary to the letter.
5. Statutes — Criminal Law — Legislative Intent — Felony-Firearm Statute — Statutory Construction.
The legislative intent behind the felony-fírearm statute so clearly indicates a mandatory additional penalty when a firearm is used or possessed during the commission of a felony that it is incumbent upon the Court of Appeals to uphold, if at all possible, such a clear statutory mandate, within the limits of constitutional proscription.
6. Statutes — Criminal Law — Felony-Firearm Statute — Sentence Enhancement Statute — Separate Distinct Felony.
The felony-fírearm statute is a sentence enhancement or sentence augmenting statute and should be construed to be inoperable only as a separate distinct felony.
7. Constitutional Law — Statutes—Presumption of Constitutionality.
Every legislative act is presumed to be constitutional; the courts are required, whenever possible, to construe in favor of validity.
8. Criminal Law — Constitutional Law — Felony-Firearm Statute —Removal of Offensive Language — Act Complete Within Itself.
The felony-fírearm statute with its offensive language removed is still an act complete within itself; it does not require references to other statutes for its meaning, nor does it alter or amend another statute by references to title; in scope and application it can be analogized to the habitual offender statute which has been found to be constitutional; as such, it is not constitutionally offensive.
Opinion of Beasley, J.
9. Constitutional Law — Criminal Law — Statutes—Felony-Firearm Statute.
The felony-firearm statute is constitutional.
Opinion of D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J.
10. Constitutional Law — Jeopardy—Trier of Fact — Attachment of Jeopardy.
A criminal defendant is not placed in jeopardy until he is put to trial before the trier of facts; jeopardy does not attach until the jury is impaneled and sworn or, in a bench trial, until the court begins to hear evidence.
11. Constitutional Law — Double Jeopardy — Single Transaction— Double Punishment — Motion to Quash.
The mere fact that a defendant is charged with two crimes arising out of a single transaction does not put him twice in jeopardy, even if it is true that conviction on both counts would constitute double punishment; therefore, a defendant’s appeal, raising the issue of double jeopardy, from a trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to quash one or both counts arising out of a single transaction is premature because the defendant has not been placed in jeopardy.
12. Criminal Law — Single Transaction — Legislative Intent — Necessarily Lesser Included Offenses — Double Punishment.
A single act may violate more than one criminal statute where this is the clear legislative intent; however, where one of two offenses charged is necessarily a lesser included offense of the other, convictions for both based on the same act amount to unconstitutional double punishment.
13. Criminal Law — Necessarily Lesser Included Offenses.
A necessarily lesser included offense is an offense where it is impossible to commit the greater without ñrst having committed the lesser; some offenses are never necessarily included in others on any set of facts because they share no elements; other offenses are always necessarily included in others because one consists of all of the elements of the other, plus more.
14. Criminal Law — Felony-Firearm—Lesser Included Offenses.
The felony of the "felony-ñrearm” crime consists of two elements: (1) carrying or possession of a ñrearm, (2) while committing or attempting to commit a felony other than carry a concealed weapon; where the carrying of a ñrearm is unrelated to the underlying felony, punishment for committing the underlying felony and also carrying a ñrearm while doing so is not double punishment; but where a ñrearm is used to commit the underlying felony, the underlying felony is necessarily included in the felony-ñrearm crime because it is impossible to commit a felony by using a ñrearm without at the same time possessing or carrying the ñrearm during the felony.
15. Constitutional Law — Double Jeopardy — Legislative Intent— Fundamental Constitutional Rights.
Double jeopardy questions should not be resolved through an examination of legislative intent; a statute cannot deprive a citizen of fundamental constitutional rights.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward R. Wilson, Principal Attorney, Appeals, and Paul C. Louisell, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Curtis G. Rundell, II, P. C. for defendant on appeal.
Before: Bashara, P. J., and Beasley and D. E. Holbrook, Jr., JJ.

Opinion:
Bashara, P. J.
Our brother's opinion delineates the salient facts upon which the defendant bases his constitutional challenge to the felony-firearm statute. However, we neither conclude that the question is prematurely presented nor that the statute, when construed, is completely violative of defendant's constitutional immunity from double jeopardy.
The denial of defendant's motion to quash the felony-firearm charge placed the case in a posture where trial on both charges was imminent. The constitutional question involved was certified here, and we granted leave to appeal. That question is of sufficient moment to the defendant and the ultimate termination of this action against him that a determination on the merits, which have been fully briefed and argued, is warranted.
Initially, we observe that our state double jeopardy provision is coterminous in operational scope with that of its Federal counterpart. People v Alvin Johnson, 396 Mich 424, 430, n 2; 240 NW2d 729 (1976), In re Ascher, 130 Mich 540, 545; 90 NW 418 (1902). Both clauses afford protection from multiple prosecutions and multiple punishment for the "same offense". North Carolina v Pearce, 395 US 711; 89 S Ct 2072; 23 L Ed 2d 656 (1969).
Standards for determination of the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes were enumerated in Blockburger v United States, 284 US 299; 52 S Ct 180; 76 L Ed 306 (1932). The test developed in Blockburger required an examination of the provisions of each statutory offense to determine whether one required proof of an additional fact which the other did not.
Michigan has held that under this theory, where one of two offenses charged is a necessarily lesser included offense of the other, merger takes place and convictions for both arising out of the same act are constitutionally impermissible. People v Martin, 398 Mich 303; 247 NW2d 303 (1976), Peo ple v Stewart (On Rehearing), 400 Mich 540; 256 NW2d 31 (1977).
We must concede, in light of the foregoing precedent and the analysis therefrom, that conviction of both felony-firearm and the underlying felony violates double jeopardy in that the underlying felony will always be a necessarily lesser included offense of felony-firearm.
However, this does not mean that we find the statute, when considered in its entirety, unconstitutional. An important element that cannot be overlooked in statutory construction is the essential ingredient of legislative intent. The primary rule governing statutory interpretation is first and foremost to ascertain and give effect to the manifest intent of the Legislature. Simpson v United States, 435 US 6; 98 S Ct 909; 55 L Ed 2d 70 (1978), Gore v United States, 357 US 386; 78 S Ct 1280; 2 L Ed 2d 1405 (1958).
The intent of the statute so clearly indicates a mandatory additional penalty when a firearm is used or possessed during the commission of a felony that it is incumbent upon this Court to uphold, if at all possible, such a clear statutory mandate, within the limits of constitutional proscription. Purview of the legislative history emphasizes certainty of punishment as the prevailing consideration in enacting the statute under review.
Rather than strike down the statute in its entirety, we construe it to be inoperable only as a separate distinct felony statute. We view it rather as a sentence enhancement or sentence augmenting statute.
Such an interpretation has precedential sanctions in this state. In Dickerson v Heide, 69 Mich App 303, 308-309; 244 NW2d 459 (1976), this Court stated:
"We find this to be an especially cogent example of a situation where literal application of a statute would cause an unfortunate and unintended result and where rejection of the literal dictates will further the intent of the statute."
Every legislative act is presumed to be constitutional. The courts are required, wherever possible, to construe in favor of validity. Oftentimes it is necessary that the spirit and purpose of the statute should prevail over its strict letter, Thomas v Consumers Power Co, 58 Mich App 486, 495; 228 NW2d 786 (1975), People v Otis Adams, 34 Mich App 546, 555; 192 NW2d 19 (1971).
Our Michigan Supreme Court in Williams v Secretary of State, 338 Mich 202, 208; 60 NW2d 910 (1953), quotes with approval a particularly compelling maxim from Endlich on the Interpretation of Statutes, § 295:
" ' "Effect to be Given to True Intent of Act. Modification of Language. — Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it, which modi fies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence. This is done, sometimes, by giving an unusual meaning to particular words; sometimes by altering their collocation; or by rejecting them altogether; or by interpolating other words; under the influence, no doubt, of an irresistible conviction that the legislature could not possibly have intended what its words signify, and that the modifications thus made are mere corrections of careless language, and really give the true intention. The ascertainment of the latter is the cardinal rule, or rather the end and object, of all construction; and where the real design of the legislature in ordaining a statute, although it be not precisely expressed, is yet plainly perceivable, or ascertained with reasonable certainty, the language of the statute must be given such a construction as will carry that design into effect, even though, in so doing, the exact letter of the law be sacrifíced, or though the construction be, indeed, contrary to the letter." ' " (Emphasis supplied.)
See also Grand Rapids v Crocker, 219 Mich 178, 183; 189 NW 221 (1922).
The statute, with the offensive language removed, is still an act complete within itself. It does not require references to other statutes for its meaning, nor does it alter or amend another statute by reference to title. As such, it is not offensive to our state constitution. In scope and application it can be analogized to the habitual offender statute which the Michigan Supreme Court has found to be constitutional. In re Pardee, 327 Mich 13; 41 NW2d 466 (1950), cert den, 339 US 961; 70 S Ct 989; 94 L Ed 1371 (1950), People v Hendrick, 398 Mich 410; 247 NW2d 840 (1976).
Critics of the view herein embraced may contend that our decision invades the province of the Legislature. To the contrary, we sincerely believe that we have sustained the obvious intent of the Legislature by exercising proper judicial construction.
Affirmed.
MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2), added by 1976 PA 6, § 1, Eff Jan. 1, 1977.
"(1) A person who carries or has in his possession a firearm at the time he commits or attempts to commit a felony, except the violation of section 227 [1931 PA 328], or 227a, is guilty of a felony, and shall be imprisoned for 2 years. Upon a second conviction under this section, the person shall be imprisoned for 5 years. Upon a third or subsequent conviction under this section, the person shall be imprisoned for 10 years.
(2) The term of imprisonment prescribed by this section shall be in addition to the sentence imposed for the conviction of the felony or the attempt to commit the felony, and shall be served consecutively with and preceding any term of imprisonment imposed for the conviction of the felony or attempt to commit the felony.
(3) The term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall not be suspended. The person subject to the sentence mandated by this section shall not be eligible for parole or probation during the mandatory term imposed pursuant to subsection (1)."
The pertinent Federal and Michigan constitutional provisions are, respectively, US Const, Am V, and Const 1963, art 1, § 15.
The intention of the Legislature is typified by a statement made in the 1976 Journal of the Senate, No 5, p 65, by Senator Kammer:
"Mr. Chairman and colleagues, you know we have heard for 3 days arguments introduced of a great many varieties but it occurs to me that there is just one central question here. There seems to be some concurrence in the feeling that the individual who commits the crime ought to be punished. We ought to be seeking some kind of criminal justice system that provides the measure of the punishment, matches the severity of the crime. And that is what we are discussing here today. It seems to me that we are attempting to determine what kind of punishment will be offered the person who is convicted of committing a felony while in possession of a handgun." (Emphasis supplied.)
Const 1963, art 4, § 25. See also, Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294, 389 Mich 441, 472-473; 208 NW2d 469 (1973), and People v Mahaney, 13 Mich 481, 497 (1865).
MCL 769.10 et seq.; MSA 28.1082 et seq.