Court Opinion

ID: 9723286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:10:21.740722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:16:16.694896
License: Public Domain

Coleman, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result of the majority opinion, agreeing in part and disagreeing in part.
In agreeing with the result, I would emphasize the fact that the Michigan "same transaction” concept is not applied in this dual sovereignty test. Had the reversal of the conviction for attempted murder been cross-appealed to this Court, we could have heard it. There was no such offense charged in the Federal court.
In disagreeing, I would narrow the rule accepted from Commonwealth v Mills, 447 Pa 163; 286 A2d 638 (1971), which "prohibits a second prosecution for an offense arising out of the same criminal act” to one which "prohibits a second prosecution for the same offense”. The latter wording is consistent with Const 1963, art 1, § 15, which provides:
"No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.”
Reluctantly, I agree with my colleagues that defendant’s convictions for bank robbery and assault with intent to rob being armed should be reversed.
On December 18, 1970, defendant entered the Michigan National Bank Building in Battle Creek carrying an intricate explosive device employing live dynamite. He threatened to destroy the bank unless he was given $375,000 in cashier checks. Defendant had another explosive device in his motel room which would have been detonated from the bank as a diversion during his planned escape. If exploded, both devices could have killed many people. Defendant did attempt to detonate *464one device when the police arrived at the bank. As Justice Lindemer notes, "[h]eroic action by bank and police officials prevented what might otherwise have been a tragic loss of life”.
Defendant was first tried in Federal court for violating this statute:
"Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association; or
"Whoever enters or attempts to enter any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, or any building used in whole or in part as a bank, credit union, or as a savings and loan association, with intent to commit in such bank, credit union, or in such savings and loan association, or building, or part thereof, so used, any felony affecting such bank or such savings and loan association and in violation of any statute of the United States, or any larceny—
"Shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.” 18 USC 2113(a).
Defendant was subsequently arraigned and convicted in the state court on three charges, two of which concern the same crimes as those described by the Federal statute. These were MCLA 750.531; MSA 28.799: .
"Any person who, with intent to commit the crime of larceny, or any felony, shall confine, maim, injure, or wound, or attempt, or threaten to confine, kill, maim, injure or wound, or shall put in fear any person for the purpose of stealing from any building, bank, safe or other depository of money, bond or other valuables, or shall by intimidation, fear or threats compel, or attempt to compel any person to disclose or surrender the means of opening any building, bank, safe, vault or *465other depository of money, bonds, or other valuables, or shall attempt to break, burn, blow up or otherwise injure or destroy any safe, vault or other depository of money, bonds or other valuables in any building or place, shall, whether he succeeds or fails in the perpetration of such larceny or felony, be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or any term of years.”
and MCLA 750.89; MSA 28.284:
"Any person, being armed with a dangerous weapon, or any article used or fashioned in a manner to lead a person so assaulted reasonably to believe it to be a dangerous weapon, who shall assault another with intent to rob and steal shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life, or for any term of years.”
In both trials defendant pled insanity. In the Federal court he was found not guilty. In the state court he was found guilty on all three counts.1
I agree with Justice Lindemer that "[w]hen state and Federal interests do coincide, prosecution by one sovereign will satisfy the need of the other”. I agree that "the interests sought to be protected by the Federal statute are not substantially different than those sought to be protected by the two state statutes” quoted above. The state charges constituted an attempt to retry defendant on substantially the same crimes for which the Federal government prosecuted him, excepting that of attempted murder.
The Court of Appeals reversed the attempted murder charge but called it a "close question”. The prosecution of defendant for attempted murder may well have involved interests substantially *466different from those addressed by the Federal statute. However, the prosecutor did not appeal the decision as to attempted murder, so we are unable to review it.
Defendant has never denied committing the acts. He had the ability and intent not only to kill himself but also many others if he failed in his mission to obtain the money. If it were not for the bank manager’s reactions and the police officers’ courage, defendant may well have accomplished the deed.
However, as a principle of law, I believe that dual sovereignty should not result in a second trial for the same criminal offense, barring some possible separate state interest not demonstrated by these facts, and I therefore concur in the reversal.

 Defendant has been free on bond since August 9, 1972. He claims to be employed by the state as a social worker.