People v. Kretchmer

1978] v Kretchmer

PEOPLE KRETCHMER (Calendar 15). Argued January Docket No. 57997. No. De 26, 1978. cided December charged Clarence L. Kretchmer was with intoxication Township police under a Niles ordinance and a with discharge duty; officer in the of his both arose out of police quieting the defendant’s actions while officers were acquitted in a He disturbance tavern. in the Fifth District Court, J., Iwaniuk, John of the of intoxication. Court, J., Hughes, granted The Berrien Circuit Julian quash charging resisting defendant’s motion the information police ground right officer on the defendant’s to be free from second under the "same-transaction” test. The Kaufman, P.J., Appeals, Court N. J. B.R. Burns and (Docket 22609). Deneweth, JJ., people appeal. affirmed No. Held: charged

1. Where one or more of the offenses does not References for Points in Headnotes 2, 5, 2d, [1, 5 Am Jur Arrest 94 6] § 2d, 107,108,182-193. 21 Am Jur Criminal Law §§ 2d, 75 Am Jur Trial 426. §§ officer, obstructing What constitutes in the absence of actual force. 44 ALR3d 1018. voluntary Modern status of the rules as to intoxication as defense charge. to criminal 8 ALR3d 1236. voluntary drug upon Effect of responsibility. 73 ALR3d 98. "public” Location of requirement offense within enactments against drunkenness. 8 ALR3d 930. voluntary When intoxication deemed in so as to constitute a de- charge. fense to criminal 73 ALR3d 195. [3, 2d, 107,108. 21 Am Jur Criminal Law §§ 2d, 75 Am Jur Trial 426. §§ voluntary Modern status the rules as to intoxication as defense charge. to criminal 8 ALR3d 1236. voluntary drug upon responsibility. Effect of 73 ALR3d 98. involuntary When intoxication deemed so as to constitute a defense charge. to criminal 73 ALR3d 195. defining intent, test transaction” the "same involve criminal in a committed continuous as those crimes "same transaction” goal inappro- display is sequence intent or time which Instead, jeopardy. examining priate a claim of double in part of the criminal are same the offenses criterion is whether to laws intended involve episode, the offenses and whether evil, substantially not prevent similar harm or the same or of, different, very or evil. kind harm or a different of criminal not involve an element intoxication does 2. Public resisting public arrest and or not intent. Whether episode, part two laws are of the same criminal can be prevent substantially harm or evil. The different intended to protect public was to purpose intoxication ordinance of the business, persons in from not public, it about its went resisting purpose arrest of the control of themselves. (the officers) physical harm protect is to statute 109 and 1977 PA 110 of 1977 PA The enactment and violence. is legislative judgment so reflects the by generally substantially covered from conduct a criminal offense at all. it not be criminal law resisting arising Therefore, charge prosecution of a of arrest public intoxication is to the which led out of events by jeopardy. barred double not Fitzgerald, Moody, joined Justices Coleman Justice agreed this case be the result and concurred distinguished announced the "same-trans- from the one which criminal intent entailed both rule because the case here action” meant to address intent offenses which were and non-criminal excep- a clear he would find this case different evils. ground. The rule on another to tion the same-transaction Legislature jurisdiction in the over ordinance violations vested resisting jurisdiction such as courts and over offenses district case, neither district In this where the circuit courts. subject-matter all the to nor court had circuit incident, arising charges it be would out of this prosecution by separate preclude unjust trial anomalous necessarily charges different courts. triable on those prosecu- Therefore, jeopardy may bar the of double claim The same-transaction tion of the defendant for arrest. type apply to simply this or intended rule not conceived of case. case and the is reversed of the Court of The decision proceedings. court for further

is remanded to the circuit (1976) reversed. v Kretchmer Opinion of the Court Jeopardy — — — 1. Criminal Law Double Same Transaction Resisting — Arrest Public Intoxication. intoxication, The offense of arrest and that of intent, which does not include an element of criminal involve prevent substantially laws intended to different harm or evil not, therefore, require single prosecution and do in a case (US episode Const, 1, V; out of one Am Const art 28.747). § Jeopardy — — 2. Criminal Law Double Joinder.

Multiple a defendant in which not all joined the offenses involve criminal intent need not be at one part they episode trial where are same criminal but violate laws intended to the same or similar harm or evil, (US but a different kind harm or evil Const, 15). V; Am Const art § — — 3. Criminal Law Public Intoxication Intent.

Public intoxication does not element intent. —

4. Criminal Law Public Intoxication. barring The enactment a imposing of statute local a ordinances penalty intoxication, public civil or being for a com- drunkard, being incapacitated, mon except or provided by defining disorderly person, the statute legislative a reflects the judgment public substantially intoxication sois different generally from conduct covered criminal law it 110). (1977 109, not be a criminal at offense PA 1977 PA Concurring Opinion by Moody, — Jeopardy — — 5. Criminal Law Double Same Transaction Resisting — — Arrest Public Intoxication Jurisdiction. ground A claim of double on the that the defendant was previously acquitted public in district court of not bar the of a defendant in circuit court for public arrest which arose out of his arrest for intoxica- tion subject-mat- because neither district nor circuit court had charges ter arising to all the criminal out of (US Const, V; 1963, 1, incident Am Const art MCL § 600.601, 600.8311[b], 750.479; 27A.601, 27A.8311[b], 28.747). 404 Mich Opinion op the Court — — Jeopardy — Same Jurisdiction Law 6. Double Criminal Transaction. by- unjust preclude prosecution to It would be anomalous necessarily triable separate trial on those through application the "same-transac- of courts apply rule, to not conceived or intended which was tion” (US Const, V; art § Am Const that kind of case 600.601, 27A.601, 27A.8311[b]). 600.8311[b]; MSA Kelley, Attorney General, A. Robert Frank J. Derengoski, Smietanka, General, A. John Solicitor Long, Jeffrey Prosecuting Attorney, John peo- Attorney, Prosecuting for the Assistant Chief ple. K for defendant.

James Jesse defendant’s The issue is whether Per Curiam. charge acquittal bars, of adopted in we rule "same under the transaction” 245, 258; White, 390 Mich (1973), charge out intoxi- led to events which cation. prosecution is not barred because

We hold intended the two offenses involve laws different harm evil. I police on March arrived a tavern at receiving report of a disturbance after causing They saw a number of owner. to leave. As these trouble and asked them they request, complying the officers’ were with a the defendant and information received companion causing offi- disturbance. The were a companion defendant to leave. The asked cers intervened. People 63 v Kretchmer Opinion op the Court An officer at testified examina preliminary tion after an exchange words, defendant arrested, was that he resisted the arrest and was subdued. Defendant was charged with an ordi intoxication), (public nance violation and with a circuit-court misdemeanor (resisting police a officer discharge in the of his duty).1 August On 1974 the acquitted defendant was in the district court of the public intoxication charge. The circuit court concluded that the trial in district court barred for resisting arrest. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 66 Mich (1976). 239 NW2d 658

II offenses White all involved an element of Crampton v 54-A District criminal intent. In Judge, 397 499, 502; NW2d (1976), we held that the criterion applied White2 inappropriate ato determination whether series of offenses arose out of the same transaction where at least one of those offenses did an element of criminal developed intent. We following criterion for such a situation:

"Where one or more of the offenses does not involve intent, the criterion is whether the offenses part of episode, are the same criminal and whether the offenses involve laws intended to the same or evil, similar different, harm or not a of, very different kind harm or evil.” MSA 28.747. We found that the three crimes committed the defendant were part single they of a transaction because "were commit- sequence display ted in a continuous time intent and goal”. White, 212 NW2d 222 404 op Opinion the Court an element not intoxication does

Public of criminal intent. were not that the offenses argue

The people because the episode” of the same "part the existed before intoxication public defendant’s public or not scene. Whether at the police arrived part of the resisting arrest can be intoxication that the persuaded are episode, we same criminal substantially intended two laws are different harm or evil. ordi public of the purpose the proscribing

nance, purpose of law as is the in liquor offense influence driving under Crampton, as public, protect was to volved in business, persons from its it went about of the The purpose of themselves.3 control officers) (the protect is to statute and harm. from violence physical 325.763; 110; MCL' of 1977 PA The enactment 18.1031(63) January barring, after MSA "a civil or criminal imposing local ordinances intoxication, being a common penalty public for pro- drunkard, being incapacitated” except 28.364, as amended by vided person”, defining disorderly PA as "a by 1977 others, person is intoxicated among who "[a] di- endangering public who is either place and property or of person another safety of rectly manner causes acting or is disturbance”, legislative judgment reflects the is so generally covered conduct all. offense at it not be a criminal law Ap- of the Court judgment We reverse the Hawkins, The purpose. & See Morris It also have an aesthetic Chicago (University of Control Politician’s Guide to Crime Honest Press, 1970), p 7. Kretchmer Opinion by Blair Moody, Jr., peals the matter to circuit court and remand opin- proceedings for further consistent with this ion. C.J., and and

Kavanagh, Williams, Levin, Ryan, JJ., concurred. (concurring). question The Moody, Jr.,

Blair J. of law raised in this case is whether the "same- adopted rule, White, transaction” in 390 (1973), 245; Mich 212 222 bars defendant’s NW2d prosecution in court for arrest circuit acquittal in district court of intoxi- after his the Court cation same incident. The Appeals in affirmed the dismissal ordered cir- (1976). App 548; cuit court. 66 Mich 658 NW2d per opinion distinguishes The curiam White on ground that "the two offenses involve laws prevent substantially intended to different harm opinion, therefore, evil”. That reverses Court of the matter to cir- remands proceedings. cuit court for further I concur without reservation in this result and agree I order to remand. also that White be distinguished because the incident here entailed both criminal of- intent and non-criminal intent fenses which were meant to address different evils. Crampton Judge, v 54-A District (1976). 501-502; 245 NW2d 28 I would exception find the instant case a clear to the argued by parties White rule on another basis presented key as a issue before the Court. I Jurisdiction over ordinance violations is vested 600.8311(b); in the district courts. MCL 27A.8311(b). misde- Jurisdiction over circuit-court Moody, Opinion by courts. MCL in the circuit is vested meanors application Consequently, MSA 27A.601. presents to this case test same-transaction right defendant’s conflict between apparent Legislature’s and the allo- jeopardy double However, on to the courts. cation of jurisdiction examination, existing indicates authority closer in circuit court on the defendant trying does constitute dou- not district court in relation to prior ble jeopardy intoxication. acquittal White adopted test was same-transaction concurring opin- on the of Justice Brennan’s basis Swenson, ion Ashe v Ct 397 US 90 S found 25 L Ed 2d 469 He pro- was the best method to same-transaction test guarantee tect Fifth Amendment defendants’ offense: to be for the same placed twice view, requires Jeopardy "In the Clause my Double circumstances, prosecution, except the to that in most limited charges against a defendant join one trial all the at act, occurrence, grow single out of episode, 'same transaction. This 'same transaction’ test prohibition enforces the ancient offense’ against Double increasingly tion in transaction or occurrence omy, prosecutions in the the multiple embodied vexatious Clause, responds Jeopardy as well to but widespread recognition the that consolida- single out of a one lawsuit of all issues promotes justice, best econ- 397 US 453-454. and convenience.” White However, Brennan’s both and Justice in Ashe test sub- opinion recognized the fact, 258, fn 6. exceptions. to 390 Mich In ject be- very question Justice Brennan addressed among He fore us now. found situations an to the "same-transac- necessitating exception court had single "no tion” test was one where Kretchmer Opinion by Moody, alleged jurisdiction 397 US crimes”. of all the fn 7. recognized prohibiting

Accordingly, it was charges arising out of unrelated simply all of the offenses because same transaction charged would not be tried in one court could purpose of situation. The an anomalous create avoiding multiple prosecutions is not vexatious compromised allowing separate trials when the being capable charges defendant are not they brought court because the same Clearly, jurisdiction. subject-matter distinct represent this limited in this case circumstances exception general rule.1 to the supra, explicitly Crampton, rein- In this Court quoting position by the American forced this (Proposed Institute, Official Law Model Penal Code 1962), Draft, § 1.07(2):_ Appeals opinion in this case raises the "allocation of The Court of 548, 550;

jurisdiction” question. A proposition that in all instances footnote in White is cited for the displace application jurisdictional of the same- differences will not 260-261, 10. rule. 390 Mich fn transaction dictum, footnote, special admittedly to the facts The White related subject-matter case where different courts had the same of that charges capability in one and therefore the charges arising out the transac- court. In that situation when all court, contemporaneously then double tion are not tried in one jeopardy apply preclude subsequent prosecution in another will words, Wayne Court court. In other and Recorder’s Court of the matter two together where two courts such as Circuit subject- City of Detroit have concurrent jurisdiction, will arise if then double considerations charges stemming not tried from the same criminal incident are 261-262, fn 11. in one of those two courts. See 390 Mich entirely question when the arises subject-matter encompasses involving transaction two offenses distinct case, jurisdiction. In be allowed to be this two respective separately footnote in White tried in the courts. The problem. in this case. addressed the former We deal with the latter applying princi The Court of ple was therefore mistaken Similarly, People present v see discussed in White to the matter. (On (1974), Remand), 484; Davenport App 702 lv 51 Mich 215 NW2d West, (1974); People v den 392 Mich 761 (1974). Mich Opinion by Blair Moody, "A defendant shall subject not be separate trials multiple for oifenses based on the same conduct arising episode, from the same criminal if such offenses appropriate are known to the prosecuting officer at the time of the commencement of the first trial and are jurisdiction within of a court.” 397 Mich 500. added.) (Emphasis

II many years recognized Our Court for has principle that a conviction of a misdemeanor in an inferior court does not constitute former subsequent prosecution felony so as to bar for a arising out of the same transaction. Townsend, 214 183 NW 177 In Townsend, where defendant was convicted in mu- nicipal driving court of while intoxicated and later manslaughter tried for from the same incident, the Court stated: "After the accident and before the Agnes death of Thorne, defendant was municipal convicted in the jus- tice court of driving the crime of an automobile while Upon intoxicated. conviction the trial urged defendant that such was a bar to the manslaugh- for ter, claiming jeopardy. former There is no merit this point. The former transaction was for a misdemeanor and did not and could not include charge here laid. A conviction in an inferior court of a misdemeanor does not constitute former jeopardy subsequent so as to bar prosecution for a felony arising out of the same transac- tion. The felony charged being here beyond jurisdic- tion of court, the inferior and not any included in sense within laid, there the defense of former jeopardy fails.” 214 Mich 275. Legislature vested over ordi- jurisdic- nance violations the district courts and People v Kretchmer Opinion Moody, Jr., by Blair J. tion over offenses such as circuit case, then, courts. In the instant where subject-mat- neither district nor circuit court had ter the criminal incident, out of this it would be anomalous unjust preclude prosecution by separate charges necessarily trial on those different courts. triable Therefore, it is concluded claim of double jeopardy may not bar the of defendant in circuit court for arrest. The same- simply transaction rule was or in- conceived apply type tended to to this of case. guarantee the Fifth Amendment jeopardy incorporates double collateral es-

toppel requirement. as a constitutional Ashe v supra. Consequently, question Swenson, whether defendant was intoxicated in a place litigated during cannot be the trial for resist- ing arrest. reversing

I thus concur in the decision of the Court of for the reasons stated. JJ., Fitzgerald,

Coleman concurred with Moody, Jr.,

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Kretchmer

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 26, 1978

Citation: 272 N.W.2d 558

Docket Number: 57997, (Calendar No. 15)

Court Abbreviation: Mich.