Court Opinion

ID: 9720511
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:33:43.289308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:18.962531
License: Public Domain

M. F. Cavanagh, J.,
(dissenting). I must dissent from the majority’s conclusion that this defendant can be convicted of two specific intent assaults. My brothers’ analysis draws heavily from California precedent which has always adopted the theory that there are as many crimes as there are victims. See People v Carlson, 37 Cal App 3d 349; 112 Cal Rptr 321 (1974), cited in the majority opinion. This conclusion is clearly a policy choice on the part of the California courts that finds little, if any, support in Michigan case law.
*177The case of People v Ochotski, 115 Mich 601; 73 NW 889 (1898), treats this issue in the context of a double jeopardy discussion. That case involved an altercation between the defendant and a husband and wife. The defendant struck and injured both. He was initially prosecuted for and acquitted of assault and battery as to the husband. Following conviction for his assault upon the wife, defendant claimed on appeal that his acquittal as to the husband, arising from the same transaction, barred his prosecution for the assault on the wife. The Court disagreed by distinguishing "one transaction” in which an individual may, by separate acts (each caused by a separate volition), commit distinct offenses and "one volition” that causes two harms. The Ochotski Court, in fact, suggested that if the same blows had injured both victims, then the defendant had only one volition that could be punished, (or, alternatively, that his prior acquittal barred his subsequent prosecution). The Court illustrated the "one volition” theory by the following example:
"If one, by a single volition, should discharge into a congregation of people a firearm loaded with peas for shot, and each of 50 different persons should be hit by a pea, it would be startling to affirm that he could be punished for assault and battery 50 times.” Id., p 610.
My brothers would characterize the statements in Ochotski as dicta. I disagree, since the discussion was necessary to the resolution of the double jeopardy issue. Under this rationale, therefore, I would hold that this defendant had one volition in aiming the gun and committed one assault only. This view finds support from the authors of the Michigan Standard Criminal Jury Instructions. See CJI 17:1:05 and commentary at 17-13 and *178People v Cronk, 9 Mich App 606, 612, fn 5; 157 NW2d 802 (1968).
I do not dispute that it is appropriate to utilize the doctrine of transferred intent as to the unintended victim. The defendant, when he fired at B (the intended victim) and hit C (the actual victim), may be convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm on C. The use of transferred intent in this situation is accepted in Michigan. People v Hodges, 196 Mich 546; 162 NW 966 (1917). It is really unclear under Michigan law, whether, having transferred the intent, the defendant commits any crime towards B (the intended victim). Under the "one volition” theory he can only be punished for the one assault. I would further note that when one views the purpose of the doctrine of transferred intent it appears that it is unnecessary to find the defendant guilty of a crime towards B. The purpose of the doctrine is to make the completed crime exactly what it would have been if the intended victim had in fact been injured or killed. People v Carlson, supra. By a conviction for the assault on C, this aim is achieved. For these reasons I would vacate the conviction under one of the assault counts here involved.
I concur with the majority’s disposition of the remaining issues.