Opinion ID: 853128
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unanswered Questions

Text: Justice Sullivan's rules, as he formulated them and as the Court states and applies them today, do not turn on a Richardson analysis. Each of them requires a determination whether the very same act or the very same behavior or harm is involved in two crimes, but none elaborates how that determination is to be made. When the Court tells us that none of the five Sullivan rules is breached by Guyton's convictions, it impliedly holds that (1) the handgun and murder convictions were not based on the very same act and (2) no element of either crime consisted of the very same act that constituted the other. The Court's formulation gives us a result: carrying the gun and firing it are two different things. I agree, but this explanation does not address any of the following issues: 1) Is this a ruling on a point of law or a finding of fact? 2) Guyton's claim is that the same evidence established both the carrying and the firing of the gun, and this violates Richardson. Is the evidence in Guyton's case relevant to this finding by this Court? If not, how does Richardson relate to this case? If Richardson is applicable, how do we determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that the jury used the same facts to find Guyton guilty of the possession and murder charges? 3) If the trial court made a finding on this point, what standard of review applies? 4) Is this determination that these do not overlap to be measured by the reasonable possibility of overlaps, or a preponderance of the evidence, or something else?