Opinion ID: 1956232
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: assault with intent to commit murder

Text: We must now address the effect of the apropos felony murder conviction on the previous assault with intent to commit murder conviction. The Court of Appeals properly labeled this an issue of first impression. It is now settled law that legislative intent determines claims of multiple punishment-double jeopardy violations in either successive or single prosecutions. Just as Blockburger has become a rule of statutory construction and, in applying federal law, is implemented only to assist in determining the intent of the Legislature, our previous cases utilizing the factual lesser included offense analysis should be similarly treated. [20] Although those cases have been disavowed as far as stating the controlling test for double jeopardy-double punishment cases, [21] the test is not extinct when it is helpful in discerning legislative intent. See Wilder, supra at 359 (RYAN, J., concurring). The rationale for why the traditional lesser included offense test should not be used in the compound-predicate crime scenario is instructive: [T]hat a predicate-based offense requires proof of a predicate offense does not mean that the two offenses are greater and lesser included offenses in the traditional sense. [T]he concept of included offenses reflects a continuum of culpability. Offenses lie on the same continuum, and are therefore greater and lesser included offenses, when the elements shared by the two offenses coincide in the harm to the societal interest to be protected. People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379, 390; 236 NW2d 461 (1975). These offenses then are tied together by logic. In contrast, predicate-based offenses and their predicates are tied together by the Legislature. In our cases that have used the lesser included offense test, the implicit assumption has been that, for committing a single criminal act, the Legislature did not intend a person to be convicted of and punished for two or more offenses lying on a single continuum of culpability. This is because each continuum comprises those offenses that serve to vindicate the same social norm. Thus, if one commits a criminal act that violates a single social norm, conviction of and punishment for a single offense would seem to vindicate the interests infringed by that act. [ Wilder at 360-361 (RYAN, J., concurring).] In the preceding section, we discussed the structure of some of our criminal statutes, indicating that many of them have base crimes setting forth the fundamental elements for their completion, and then increase in penalty as the crime gets more complex in elements and severe in nature. For these types of crimes, the Legislature did not intend concurrent or subsequent prosecution, or multiple punishment. Similarly, in the present case, the defendants were convicted of assault with intent to commit murder and then subsequently actual murder. The Court of Appeals held that assault with intent to commit murder is a lesser included offense of felony murder. [22] Had the death of Mr. Dudley occurred before the first conviction, it is without doubt that upon the finding of guilt for felony murder, the assault with intent to commit murder would have merged into the more serious crime. [23]