Court Opinion

ID: 9464824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:43:48.939714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:50.416254
License: Public Domain

EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result, but I do not agree that United States v. Gaddis, 424 U.S. 544, 96 S.Ct. 1023, 47 L.Ed.2d 222 (1976), affects the rule of Milanovich v. United States, 365 U.S. 551, 81 S.Ct. 728, 5 L.Ed.2d 773 (1961).1
The Milanovich Court held that a new trial is required when (1) there is sufficient evidence to go to the jury on both larceny and receiving counts, (2) the trial judge fails to instruct the jury that it may not convict on both counts, and (3) the jury convicts on both counts. The Court so held because, under the circumstances, “there [was] no way of knowing whether a properly instructed jury would have found the [defendant] guilty of larceny or of receiving (or, conceivably, of neither).” 365 U.S. at 555, 81 S.Ct. at 730.
I find this situation factually distinguishable. Here, unlike in Milanovich, the evidence of guilt is overwhelming on each of the charges. It is therefore clear that a properly instructed jury would have eon*802victed only on the robbery count. Dismissal of the possession count cured the error.

. The Gaddis majority distinguishes Milanovich, and Justice White’s concurrence explicitly recognizes the Milanovich rule, but disagrees with it.