Court Opinion

ID: 9677210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:46:10.857071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:54.104878
License: Public Domain

Wendell L. Griffen, Judge, dissenting. Because this case presents an issue of first impression regarding whether a prosecution for second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act based on the same conduct violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against double jeopardy, we attempted to certify the appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court, pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2 (b)(1) and (3). The supreme court declined to accept the case. Given the applicable federal case law governing double jeopardy, and because there is no clear legislative intent indicating that the offenses are to be punished cumulatively, pursuant to Rowbottom v. State, 341 Ark. 33, 13 S.W.3d 904 (2000), I would reverse appellant’s conviction on the ground that his prosecution for both offenses constituted double jeopardy. Thus, I respectfully dissent. The majority opinion purports to address appellant’s double jeopardy argument by a reasoning process that is as fanciful as it is convoluted. First, the majority holds that the trial court did not err when it denied appellant’s motion at the close of the State’s case and at the close of all of the evidence to require the State to elect whether to submit the first degree-battery or the terroristic-act charge to the jury. That holding is based on the erroneous view that, pursuant to Hill v. State, 314 Ark. 275, 862 S.W.2d 836 (1996), appellant’s motions were untimely because they were made before the jury returned guilty verdicts on both charges. However, Hill does not stand for the proposition that an appellant’s constitutional double-jeopardy argument is procedurally barred because he does not wait until the jury returns both verdicts to move the trial court to limit the conviction to only one charge. In Hill, the appellant made a pretrial motion requesting the trial court dismiss one of the charges on double jeopardy grounds and orally renewed the motion during trial. He argued that his conduct constituted a continuing course of conduct under Arkansas Code Annotated 5-1-110(a)(5) (Repl. 1997). The Hill court reversed and remanded on other grounds, but stated that the trial court correctly denied appellant’s motions. See id. at 281, 862 S.W.2d at 839. The court also noted in dicta, that under section 5-1-110(a), the jury may find a defendant guilty of a greater and lesser offense, and if so, the trial court should enter the judgment of conviction only for the greater conviction. Finally, the Hill court noted that upon remand, if the defendant was convicted of both charges, he would likely move to limit the judgment of conviction to one charge and at that time, the trial court would be required to determine whether convictions could be entered on both charges. See id. at 314, 862 S.W.2d at 840. The majority asserts that appellant’s double jeopardy argument on appeal is procedurally barred. However, the Hill court did not find that appellant’s double jeopardy argument was barred where he made a pretrial motion and orally renewed the motion during the trial. While Hill may stand for the unremarkable proposition that the trial court may allow the prosecution to proceed on both charges and is not required to limit the conviction to the greater offense until the jury returns with verdicts on both charges, it does not support the majority’s position that appellant’s double jeopardy argument is procedurally barred because he did not wait until the jury returned both verdicts to move the trial court to limit the conviction to only one charge. Nevertheless, even though the majority holds that appellant’s argument is procedurally barred, it asserts that “[e]ven were we to consider appellant’s double-jeopardy argument on the merits, we would hold that no violation occurred.” Proceeding from the State’s contentions and proof that appellant “fired multiple shots at Mrs. Brown’s van and that Mrs. Brown was personally hit twice,” the majority opinion concludes that “appellant’s convictions for second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act are not constitutionally infirm because they are based on two separate criminal acts.” The majority then treats appellant’s double-jeopardy argument as if the dispositive issue is whether committing a terroristic act is a continuous-course-of-conduct crime, pursuant to McLennan v. State, 337 Ark. 83, 987 S.W.2d 668 (1999). Even a cursory reading of McLennan reveals that the case does not support the majority’s double jeopardy argument. In that case, the appellant argued that his conviction on multiple counts of committing a terroristic act-rather than a single count-violated his Fifth Amendment double jeopardy right. The supreme court rejected that argument because committing a terroristic act is not a continuing-course-of-conduct crime. Justice Smith’s opinion is crystal clear on this subject: Appellant contends that a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-310 “Terroristic Act” is a continuing-course-of-conduct crime which should limit the charges against him under this statute to one charge for shooting into the apartment three times. . . Nothing in this statute defines this crime as being a continuous-course-of-conduct crime, or even gives the impression that it was created with such a purpose. . . There is no question that one shot would be sufficient to constitute the offense. Multiple shots, particularly where multiple persons are present, pose a separate and distinct threat of serious harm for each shot to any individual within their range. Moreover, had appellant fired his weapon and injured or killed three people there is no question that multiple charges would ensue. Each of appellant’s shots required a separate conscious act or impulse in pulling the trigger and is accordingly punishable as a separate offense. Id. at 337 Ark. 89, 987 S.W.2d at 671-72 (emphasis added). The majority now cites McLennan in rejecting appellant’s double jeopardy argument by asserting that “each of the two bullets that penetrated Mrs. Brown would comport with each of the two guilty verdicts that the jury rendered. Thus, the prohibition against double jeopardy was not violated in this case.” The issue before us is fundamentally different from that presented in McLennan because the charges are different. When Justice Smith wrote in McLennan that “there is no question multiple charges would ensue,” he plainly referred to multiple counts of the same terroristic act charge, not separate charges for entirely different offenses. The appellant in this case was not convicted of multiple counts of committing a terroristic act with regard to shooting his wife. He was charged with first-degree battery, a Class B felony (count 1), and committing a terroristic act, a Class Y felony (count 2). He was convicted of second-degree battery, plainly a iesser-included-offense of first-degree battery. McLennan provides no authority for the majority’s double jeopardy argument because the charges for which the instant appellant was convicted are different from the charges in the McLennan case. Moreover, there has been no legislative or judicial determination prior to this case that second-degree battery is a lesser-included offense of committing a terroristic act. Yet, the majority’s position is premised on the unresolved issue of whether second-degree battery is a lesser-included offense. The majority states: “[A]n accused may be charged and prosecuted for different criminal offenses, even though one offense is a lesser-included offense, or an underlying offense, of another offense. . . However, a defendant so charged cannot be convicted of both the greater and the lesser offenses.” (Emphasis added.) The majority characterizes the offenses in whatever manner best suits its analysis. It acknowledges that the offenses are separate for purposes of implying that one offense is a lesser- included offense, but simultaneously attempts to treat them as multiple charges of the same offense when attempting to apply McLennan. The majority’s reasoning in this regard is untenable for at least two reasons. First, the majority appears to set new precedent without expressly doing so. In addition, if second-degree battery is a lesser-included offense of committing a terroristic act, as the majority implies, then the majority must concede that appellant’s double jeopardy rights have been violated because appellant clearly could not be convicted of both offenses, as the majority opinion acknowledges in citing Hill v. State, 325 Ark. 419, 931 S.W.2d 64 (1996). The majority’s reliance on McLennan is especially troublesome because it also implies that appellant’s double jeopardy rights could only be violated if he had been convicted of both charges based on a single bullet entering his wife’s vehicle and striking her. The majority states: “Thus, each of the two bullets that penetrated Mrs. Brown would comport with each of the two guilty verdicts that the jury rendered. Thus, the prohibition against double jeopardy was not violated in this case.” Nothing in the McLennan opinion supports that notion, nor does the majority opinion offer any other authority for it. In sum, it appears that the majority has strained to affirm appellant’s convictions of second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act by virtue of a flawed reasoning process and by relying on inapposite or nonexistent legal authority. The majority deems appellant’s double jeopardy argument procedurally barred because his motions to compel the State to elect which charge it would proceed upon were untimely. Hill v. State, supra, clearly does not stand for the proposition that the majority asserts. Moreover, the majority analyzes appellant’s double jeopardy challenge on the merits using the assumption that second-degree battery is a lesser-included offense of committing a terroristic act. The majority impliedly does so with no authority for its conclusion. Finally, the majority imagines that being charged with the separate offenses of second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act is equivalent to being charged with multiple counts of one offense. That the majority opinion relies upon McLennan while so clearly recognizing that the appellant in this case has been not been charged with multiple counts of the same offense demonstrates the extraordinary lengths taken to justify a result I consider troublesome and unfair. Further, the majority completely fails to apply the correct legal standard, because it failed to determine the legislative intent governing a defendant’s conviction under both statutes at issue in this case. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects a defendant from: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense. See Muhammed v. State, 67 Ark. App. 262, 998 S.W.2d 763 (1999). The applicable rule under Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932), is that: where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.... ‘A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.’ (Citations omitted.) Appellant was convicted of second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act. Pursuant to Blockburger, unless each of these offenses requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not, appellant’s double jeopardy rights were violated. A person commits second-degree battery under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-13-202 (Supp. 1999) if: (a)(1) With the purpose of causing physical injury to another person, he causes serious physical injury to any person; (a)(3) He recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon. Second-degree battery is a Class D felony. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-202(b) (Supp. 1999). A person commits a terroristic act under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-13-310 (Repl. 1997) if “[h]e shoots at or in any manner projects an object with the purpose to cause injury to persons or property at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by passengers.” Subsection (a)(2) defines this offense as a Class Y felony if the act is committed with the purpose of causing physical injury to another person, and causes serious physical injury or death to another person. Otherwise, the offense is a Class B felony under subsection (b)(1). Appellant was convicted of a Class Y felony because he shot the victim while she was in her car. Therefore, the double jeopardy analysis must be restricted to the elements of establishing second-degree battery and committing a Class Y terroristic act. The offense of committing a Class Y terroristic act requires an additional element of proof beyond what must be shown to establish second-degree battery. This is because the State must show serious physical injury and the additional element of firing into a conveyance or occupiable structure. The elements for committing a second-degree battery under either section of the battery statute were met in this case where the State proved appellant committed a Class Y terroristic act. Clearly, a person can commit a Class B terroristic act without committing second-degree battery because one commits a Class B terroristic act without causing physical injury or serious physical injury to a person. However, a person cannot commit a Class Y terroristic act without also committing second-degree battery because a person cannot commit a Class Y terroristic act without intending to cause physical injury to another person and without causing serious physical injury to another person. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-202(a)(l) (Repl. 1997). The converse is not true. Second-degree battery does not require proof of an additional element that committing a Class Y terroristic act does not require. Second-degree battery may be proved by means other than purposefully causing serious physical injury, i.e., by recklessly causing serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon. However, this does not require proof of an additional element beyond proving the defendant caused serious physical injury. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-202 (a)(3). Therefore, under the Blockburger test, because each offense does not require proof of additional elements, the two statutes punish the same conduct. Our inquiry does not end simply because two statutes punish the same conduct. The Supreme Court has stated, “Because the substantive power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments is vested with the legislature, . . . the question under the Double Jeopardy Clause [of] whether punishments are ‘multiple’ is essentially one of legislative intent[.]” Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 499 (1984). Thus, even though the majority fails to acknowledge this requirement, it is necessary, pursuant to our supreme court’s holding in Rowbottom v. State, supra, to determine whether the Arkansas General Assembly intended to enact an additional penalty for conduct supporting convictions for both second-degree battery and committing a terroristic act. In Rowbottom, our supreme court held that a defendant’s conviction for possession of drugs and for simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms does not constitute double jeopardy. Citing Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983), the Rowbottom court stated that when the same conduct violates two statutory provisions, the issue is whether the General Assembly intended for the two offenses to be separate offenses.1 The Rowbottom court held that the intent of the General Assembly was clear because the legislature enacted a statute declaring its intent prohibiting the simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms. Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-74-102 (Repl. 1997) specifically refers to distributing a controlled substance while possessing a firearm. 341 Ark. at 40, 13 S.W.2d at 908. Therefore, the Rowbottom court reasoned, the General Assembly made it clear that it intended to provide an additional penalty for the separate offense of simultaneously possessing controlled substances and firearms. Id. See also Sherman v. State. 326 Ark. 153, 165, 931 S.W.2d 417, 425 (1996) (stating, “Given the clear legislative intent expressed in section 5-54-125(b) that fleeing is to be considered a separate offense, we have no doubt in concluding that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar Appellant’s trial or punishment therefor.”). Here, the legislative intent is not clear. What little legislative intent we can glean supports a holding that the legislature intended only to prescribe additional punishment for the conduct leading to the charges in this case, rather than to proscribe separate, cumulative punishment for the two offenses. First, the two offenses are of the same generic class. The difference between the offenses is based upon the degree of risk or risk of injury to person or property, or else upon grades of intent or degrees of culpability. See Ritchie v. State, 31 Ark. App. 177, 790 S.W.2d 919 (1990). Moreover, the terroristic act statute contemplates conduct posing a greater degree of risk to persons because it contemplates death, whereas, second-degree battery is limited to serious physical injury. This is reflected in the fact that the same conduct which constitutes a Class D felony for second-degree battery also constitutes a Class Y felony for committing a terroristic act, which carries a more severe penalty. Second, while there is no significant language indicating the legislature’s intent regarding the second-degree battery statute, the emergency clause of 1979 Arkansas Act 428, Section 3, which amended the terroristic act statute, states that the criminal punishment for sniping into cars should be increased immediately to discourage further sniping incidents. This language suggests that the legislature intended to provide enhanced sentencing for such conduct comprising a terroristic act alone, not provide separate punishment for conduct comprising both a terroristic act and second-degree battery. The effects of today’s decision may be far-reaching.2 The federal Constitution provides a floor below which our fundamental rights do not fall. The majority opinion lowers that floor with regard to the right against double jeopardy and reduces the protection against double jeopardy to a mere legal fiction because it allows the State to punish a person under two different statutes for the same conduct, absent a clear legislative rationale for doing so. If prosecution under these circumstances does not constitute double jeopardy, I cannot imagine a scenario in which it would exist. Apparently, neither can the majority because they do not explain what more would be required in order for them to conclude that a defendant’s right against double jeopardy has been violated. Because I believe that a fundamental constitutional right should not be so trivialized simply to permit prosecutors to compound charges against persons accused of crimes, I must respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Judges HART, NEAL, and ROAF join in this opinion.   In Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (1983), the United States Supreme Court held that convictions for first-degree robbery and armed criminal action did not constitute double jeopardy where the Missouri legislature intended that the punishment for violations of both statutes be cumulative. The Missouri statute defining armed criminal action provides that any person who commits a felony (such as first-degree robbery) by use of a dangerous or deadly weapon is also guilty of the crime of armed criminal action. The statute further specifies that the punishment imposed shall be in addition to the punishment for the underlying crime. 459 U.S. at 362. The Hunter court stated that “where a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes. . . regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the same conduct, a court’s task of statutory construction is at an end.” Id. at 368.    In the future, the double jeopardy issue may arise in conjunction with the terroristic act statute in another context. The terroristic act statute also contemplates conduct that results in the death of another person. Unless it is determined that a terroristic act was not meant to be a separate, chargeable offense, it is foreseeable that a prosecutor could elect to charge a defendant with committing a terroristic act and murder, or a lesser-included offense thereof.