 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Missouri v Hunter
[1983]
Author:- Sam Biers
Former Jeopardy- The Same Offense
Relevant Facts: Df and two accomplices entered a grocery store in Kansas City. The df entered the managers office and ordered him, at gun point, to open the safe. While doing so he was struck in the face twice with the gun. A co worker drove by and saw the events unfolding and alerted a nearby off duty policeman. When he arrived the df fired a shot at the officer, he fired back and the trio escaped. The were later caught and identified. The df made an oral and written confession.
Legal Issue(s): whether the prosecution and conviction of a df in a single trial on multiple charges of armed criminal action, and 1st degree robbery, violates d. jeopardy of the 5th?
Court’s Holding:
Procedure: Trial ct conviction for robbery, armed criminal action, and assault with malice. Df was sentenced to concurrent terms of 10 and 15; then consecutive 5 for the assault totaling 20 years. Df appealed sentence; M. ct of App reversed, M S. Ct denied review. S. Ct. judgment vacated and remanded.
Law or Rule(s): Where statutory provisions proscribe the “same offense,” they are construed not to authorize cumulative punishments in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.
Court Rationale: The two statutes, armed criminal action and 1st degree robbery, as determined by the Missouri S. Ct. define the same crime, and the legislature intended that punishment for violations of the statutes be cumulative (integrated/aggregate). The D. J. Clause does not preclude the imposition , in a single trial, of cumulative punishments made pursuant to statute. The D.J Cl only preclude such where the legislative intent is not clear. Legislatures, not cts proscribe punishments. When as here the legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishments under two statutes, regardless of whether those two statutes proscribe the same conduct, the ct’s task of statutory construction is at an end.
Plaintiff’s Argument: Under the statutes the prosecution is not barred from seeking cumulative sentences, involving different criminal charges even if they define the same crime, so long as the legislature clearly determines the same.
Defendant’s Argument: The imposition of a sentence for both robbery in the first and armed criminal action violates the D. J Clause, b/c it prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense.