Court Opinion

ID: 9672727
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:59:18.644923+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:17.979383
License: Public Domain

Kavanagh, J.
I concur in the result reached by Justice Levin for I think it serves little purpose to argue over how many fallen angels can dance on the head of one criminal pin.
My understanding of the "double jeopardy” concept is that it is concerned with multiplication rather than magnification and precludes multiple charges and multiple punishment for a single crime.
Dividing one criminal act into many parts and treating each as a separate crime offends this concept. The single act of holding up one grocery store should be punished as one crime without regard to how many individuals happened to be on the premises at the time or indeed who held title to the property taken.
The number of people affected by a criminal act magnifies but does not multiply the crime. The gravamen of a crime is the offense against all of the people, not the number of "victims”.
Inasmuch as the greatest crime of each classification is embraced in our separate criminal statutes, a single charge of such crime should be considered to provide appropriate penalty upon conviction.
In this case conviction of a single count of armed *148robbery would support a sentence of life in prison. Such penalty should satisfy the requirements of vengeance of the most righteous.
Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
I would affirm conviction of one count of armed robbery and remand for resentencing.
Boyle, J., took no part in the decision of this case.