Court Opinion

ID: 9426295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:29.356361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:54.460749
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice White,
with whom The Chief Justice joins, concurring.
Because the Court deems this case distinguishable from Milanovich v. United States, 365 U. S. 551 (1961), it sees no occasion to consider the continuing validity of that decision; and I do not read the Court’s opinion as reaffirming, in addition to describing, the Milanovich rule that a new trial is required when (1) a jury is erroneously permitted to convict a defendant both of bank robbery, 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (a), (b), or (d), and of knowing possession of the proceeds of that robbery, 18 U. S. C. § 2113 (c), and (2) there is evidence to support both convictions.
As the Court states, a jury, having convicted on the robbery count, should stop there without going on to consider the possession count. If the jury is erroneously permitted, however, to consider and convict on the possession count as well, such a conviction casts absolutely no doubt on the validity of the robbery conviction. Under such circumstances it is not impossible to say upon which count, if either, a properly instructed jury would have convicted the defendant. It may be concluded with satisfactory certainty that the jury, having convicted for both offenses, would have convicted of robbery if it had been properly instructed. The verdict on the robbery count shows that the jury found each element of that *552offense to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt. That the jury went on to find that the defendant also possessed the proceeds of the robbery — whether on a different date and on different proof or not — casts no doubt on the trustworthiness of the findings on the robbery count. The problem of erroneously permitting the jury to consider and convict on two counts — on each of which, considered separately, the jury was properly instructed — when they should have considered and convicted on only one bears no relation to that presented in Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 (1931), in which the jury was permitted to convict on a single count on both a valid and an invalid theory. In Stromberg, it was impossible to know whether a properly instructed jury would have convicted the defendant of anything. In the class of cases governed by Milanovich, the robbery count is untainted by the fact that in addition to its finding of guilty on that count the jury also made findings on the possession count, for those findings are factually consistent with the findings on the robbery count.
In all cases in which the court correctly instructs the jury on the elements of. the crime of robbery, any resulting conviction and sentence should be sustained. In those cases in which the jury also convicts of possession, that conviction and any sentence on it should simply be vacated.* A new trial on the robbery count in any such *553case would result in an expenditure of court resources and the possibility of an acquittal — through loss of evidence or other causes — of a reliably convicted defendant for no reason.

 If district judges instruct juries as the majority opinion requires, this problem will not arise. However, since this Court’s decision in Milanovich v. United States, 365 U. S. 551 (1961), district judges should have been instructing juries not to consider possession counts, if they convict of robbery. As this case and others attest, e. g., United States v. Sellers, 520 F. 2d 1281 (CA4 1975), cert. pending, Nos. 74-1476 and 74—6503; Phillips v. United States, 518 F. 2d 108 (CA4 1975) (en banc), cert. pending, Nos. 75-167 and 75—5457; United States v. Dixon, 507 F. 2d 683 (CA8 1974), cert. pending, *553No. 74r-5869, district judges have nonetheless made mistakes, and there is no reason to believe that the mistakes will completely cease just because the Court today reiterates the correct instructions.