People of Michigan v. Roger Leon Hunt Jr
328237
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- Defendant Roger Leon Hunt, Jr. was convicted by a jury of: operating/maintaining a methamphetamine laboratory (MCL 333.7401c(1)(a)), possessing chemicals/equipment to manufacture methamphetamine (MCL 333.7401c(1)(b)), and maintaining a drug house (MCL 333.7405(d)).
- Evidence included testimony that Hunt and a cohabitant cooked methamphetamine in a tarped-off area of the home; other occupants observed supplies and strong odors consistent with cooking.
- Police executing a search warrant found one-pot reaction vessels (one active, one “dry”), a cut-open lithium battery, a hydrogen generator, a blender, and coffee filters—items used in meth manufacture.
- The prosecution tied ownership/possession of the house and of the chemicals/equipment to Hunt. He was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to concurrent prison terms.
- On appeal, Hunt argued his convictions under both MCL 333.7401c(1)(a) and (1)(b) violated double jeopardy because the offenses overlapped.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convictions under MCL 333.7401c(1)(a) (own/possess/use location to manufacture) and MCL 333.7401c(1)(b) (own/possess chemicals or equipment to manufacture) violate double jeopardy | Prosecution: the statutes address different elements and can support separate convictions | Hunt: possessing chemicals/equipment is necessary to maintain a meth lab, so convicting him of both is multiple punishment for the same conduct | Affirmed: no double jeopardy; each subsection requires an element the other does not (location ownership vs. ownership/possession of chemicals/equipment) |
Key Cases Cited
- Szalma v. People, 487 Mich 708 (Michigan Supreme Court) (discusses double jeopardy protection under U.S. and Michigan Constitutions)
- Ream v. People, 481 Mich 223 (Michigan Supreme Court) (applies Blockburger test to determine whether offenses have distinct elements)
- Nutt v. People, 469 Mich 565 (Michigan Supreme Court) (substantial evidentiary overlap does not create double jeopardy if elements differ)
- Meshell v. People, 265 Mich App 616 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (distinguishable case where one statutory provision subsumed another)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 US 299 (U.S. Supreme Court) (established the same-elements test for double jeopardy)