Court Opinion

ID: 9503005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:36:29.774126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:16.703880
License: Public Domain

HATHAWAY, J.
(dissenting). I dissent from the majority’s decision because I disagree with the distinction that the majority draws between a trial court’s erroneous ruling related to a required element of an offense and a trial court’s erroneous ruling related to a mistak*37enly added element of an offense. The United States Supreme Court has explained that, for purposes of double jeopardy, a reviewing court must “determine whether the ruling of the judge, whatever its label, actually represents a resolution, correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.”1 Further, I believe that People v Nix, 453 Mich 619; 556 NW2d 866 (1996), controls this case. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

 United States v Martin Linen Supply Co, 430 US 564, 571; 97 S Ct 1349; 51 L Ed 2d 642 (1977).