Charles THESSEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.
No. 1607.
Supreme Court of Alaska.
April 13, 1973.
John E. Havelock, Atty. Gen., Juneau, Charles M. Merriner, Asst. Dist. Atty., Anchorage, for appellee.
Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CONNOR and BOOCHEVER, JJ.
BOOCHEVER, Justice.
OPINION
This case involves a question as to whether multiple sentences may be imposed for conviction on numerous counts of manslaughter, under circumstances whereby one act of arson involved multiple victims.
On October 12, 1966, Thessen was charged with 14 counts of first degree murder. Each count was the same but for the names of the 14 decedents. Each count incorporated the provisions of
[The accused] did purposely, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, while perpe
trating arson, kill [the decedent] by setting fire to the Lane Hotel, 246 C. Street, where [the decedent] was staying.
All of which was contrary to and in violation of
At the close of the trial on the above-mentioned charges the jury was instructed that, to convict Thessen of first degree murder, they must find that he killed the named decedent by setting fire to the Lane Hotel, that he killed the named decedent purposely, that he killed the named decedent while in the perpetration of arson, and that the death of the named decedent was proximately caused by the defendant setting fire to the Lane Hotel. “Purposely to kill” was defined to mean that Thessen had intentionally taken the lives of those who had died in the Lane Hotel fire.2 The instruction then stated that a person capable of reasoning from cause and effect may be found to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts.
A lesser included offense instruction was given as to the murder charge, in part, as follows:
For the purpose of this case, manslaughter is defined as an unlawful, but unintentional killing of another while in the commission of an unlawful act and it is the absence of the element of specific intent to kill which distinguishes manslaughter from murder in the first degree as charged in the Indictment.
“Unlawful” means contrary to or prohibited by law and in this case the unlawful act alleged is arson. (Emphasis added.)
Thessen was acquitted on the first degree murder charges, but was found guilty of 14 counts of manslaughter. He was sentenced to three consecutive 20-year terms and 11 concurrent 20-year terms.
An appeal follows.3 Among the issues before this court was a question as to the validity of the sentences.4 Thessen‘s arguments were interpreted as an application for sentence review and were not discussed as this court did not at that time have authority to review sentences. The judgment was affirmed.
On February 19, 1971 Thessen applied for post-conviction relief pursuant to
Initially, it is important to recognize the motive of the act for which the jury found Thessen guilty. By its finding of not guilty on the felony-murder charges but guilty of the manslaughter counts, the jury indicated that Thessen had not intentionally killed anyone.7 He did, however, intend to commit arson. As a result of that unlawful act, 14 persons were unintentionally killed by him.
The question of whether more than one sentence may be imposed for a single act involving multiple victims is a difficult one. There has been a conflict as to whether constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy such as
Courts have long wrestled with the multifaceted problem of determining what constitutes one offense. Many such cases involve statutes which define separate crimes for piecemeal portions of one transaction. In the posture of this case, however, we are confronted with the violation of but one statute involving multiple victims. The answer to the question will depend in part on whether we focus on the single act of arson or the consequence involving multiple victims. We look first to Whitton for guidance in solving this dilemma. After discussing the “same evidence“,11 the “same transaction”12 tests and other recommended criteria, Whitton adopted a more flexible standard than either. The different statutes are to be compared as applied to the facts of the case in order to ascertain whether they involve differences in intent or conduct. If such differences exist, they are to be judged in light of the basic interests of society to be vindicated or protected. A decision must then be made as to whether those differences are substantial enough to warrant multiple punishments.13
The initial inquiry under Whitton is thus directed at a comparison of the different statutes violated as applied to the facts of the case in order to ascertain whether there are differences in intent or conduct. But in the subject case, only one statute is involved. We can compare one count with another and still apply the test. The sole difference between each count was the name of the victim involved. Thessen‘s intent and conduct14 were identical as to each count. Since there is an absence of any difference in intent and conduct, we do not reach the other considerations set forth in Whitton — the judging of the differences “in light of the basic interests of society to be vindicated or protected“. The Whitton test for ascertainment of double jeopardy when applied to the multiple counts charged against Thessen dictates the conclusion that but one offense was committed.15 Where there has been but one statute violated by a single act, without intent to harm multiple victims, the Alaskan constitutional prohibition against placing a person in jeopardy twice for the same offense prevents imposition of multiple punishments.
A different question would be presented if the Legislature had seen fit to increase the punishment for a single act of manslaughter by means of arson of a multiple-family dwelling. Although the jury‘s verdict absolved Thessen of any intent to kill, they did find that he intended to burn the Lane Hotel, and his conduct was such that he did so. Setting fire to a hotel where numerous people sleep does not involve the same conduct or intent as setting fire to a single family dwelling or an abandoned shed. The most grave of societal interests, preservation of the sanctity of life, is involved. If the Legislature so desired, it could recognize this interest by increasing the penalties for this offense. The Legislature has not seen fit to make this distinction. While the statutes do recognize and distinguish between setting fire to (1) a dwelling, (2) other types of buildings, (3) personal property, and (4) attempts at arson;16 there is no distinction between manslaughter by arson in a dwelling house and arson in a multiple-person dwelling house. We have no power to read this distinction into the statute so as to increase the punishment for a single act beyond the maximum authorized by the Legislature.
The punishment appropriate for the diverse federal offenses is a matter for the discretion of Congress, subject only to constitutional limitations, more particularly the Eighth Amendment. Congress could no doubt make the simultaneous transportation of more than one woman in violation of the Mann Act liable to cumulative punishment for each woman so transported. The question is: did it do so?18
The court answered this question as follows:
When Congress has the will it has no difficulty in expressing it — when it has the will, that is, of defining what it desires to make the unit of prosecution and, more particularly, to make each stick in a faggot a single criminal unit. When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity. And this not out of any sentimental consideration, or for want of sympathy with the purpose of Congress in proscribing evil or anti-social conduct. It may fairly be said to be a presupposition of our law to resolve doubts in the enforcement of a penal code against the imposition of a harsher punishment. This in no wise implies that language used in criminal statutes should not be read with the saving grace of common sense with which other enactments, not cast in technical language, are to be read. Nor does it assume that offenders against the law carefully read the penal code before they embark on crime. It merely means that if Congress does not fix the punishment for a federal offense clearly and without ambiguity, doubt will be resolved against turning a single transaction into multiple offenses, when we have no more to go on than the present case furnishes.19
A similar result was reached by court in the Ladner v. United States case20 involving the wounding of two federal officers by a single shot from a shotgun. The court found that but a single violation of the statute had occurred and that only one penalty could be imposed:
“When Congress leaves to the Judiciary the task of imputing to Congress an undeclared will, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity.” (Citations omitted.) This policy of lenity means that the Court will not interpret a federal criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what Congress intended. If Congress desires to create multiple offenses from a single act affecting more than one federal officer, Congress can make that meaning clear. We thus hold that the single discharge of a shotgun alleged by the petitioner in this case would constitute only a single violation of § 254.21
The primary purpose of criminal law is to inhibit antisocial conduct by assigning appropriate punishment. As parodied by Gilbert and Sullivan in the Mikado, the object is “[t]o let the punishment fit the crime.” To achieve this purpose the focus must be on the intent and conduct of the perpetrator rather than on fortuitous results.
Within constitutional limits,22 the Legislature has the power to impose whatever punishments it deems appropriate for specific crimes. In fact, it has had little difficulty in expressing distinctions where it has seen fit to do so.23 If the Legislature so desired, it could authorize a more stringent punishment for manslaughter resulting from acts of arson. To date, however, it has not done so.
Accordingly, but one sentence for the maximum period prescribed by the Legislature is permissible for Thessen‘s offense. The judgment denying Thessen‘s application for post-conviction relief is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERWIN and FITZGERALD, JJ., not participating.
RABINOWITZ, Chief Justice (dissenting).
The majority today concludes that
[w]here there has been but one statute violated by a single act, without intent to harm multiple victims, the Alaskan constitutional prohibition against placing a person in jeopardy twice for the same offense prevents [the] imposition of multiple punishments.1
I must respectfully dissent from that holding.
The majority relies heavily on our decision in Whitton v. State, 479 P.2d 302 (Alaska 1970) in reaching its conclusion.2 In Whitton the trial court convicted the defendant of both robbery3 and the use of firearms during the commission of the
The problem we are faced with has arisen by reason of legislative division or refinement of what may be a unitary criminal episode into a number of statutory offenses, with differences based upon intent or means or method of perpetration.5
We determined that the legislature defined two different forms of the same offense and that under the facts of that case double jeopardy prohibited punishment for both.6 In my view, Whitton is distinguishable from the case at bar and is not controlling.
In the case before us, we are concerned not with whether several distinct but overlapping statutes have been applied to exact multiple punishment for what is essentially a “unitary criminal episode,” but rather whether Thessen‘s conduct violated a single statute several times over.
The majority seems to hold that since the 14 victims lost their lives as a result of Thessen‘s single act of arson, only a single conviction for manslaughter may be sustained. In Neal v. State, 55 Cal.2d 11, 9 Cal.Rptr. 607, 357 P.2d 839 (1960), the California Supreme Court faced a similar case. The defendant Neal was accused of attempting to murder two persons by burning down a dwelling with the intended victims inside. Neal was convicted on two counts of attempted murder. The Supreme Court of California allowed the separate convictions for attempted murder to stand. Speaking for the court Justice Traynor said:
The purpose of the protection against multiple punishment is to insure that the defendant‘s punishment will be commensurate with his criminal liability. A defendant who commits an act of violence with the intent to harm more than one person or by a means likely to cause harm to several persons is more culpable than a defendant who harms only one person.7
As Justice Traynor later commented in his dissent in In Re Hayes, 70 Cal.2d 604, 75 Cal.Rptr. 790, 451 P.2d 430 (1969), the defendant‘s culpability must be assessed in light of the expressed legislative purpose, and that therefore it is of little consequence that several victims died as a result of a single muscular contraction.8
. . . a person who unlawfully kills another is guilty of manslaughter, and is punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary for not less than one year nor more than 20 years.10
The controlling language defining the offense of manslaughter is “unlawfully kills another.” In my view this language reflects the legislature‘s intent to have the offense depend on the consequences of the defendant‘s act and not the means by which those consequences were achieved. The majority would apparently uphold separate manslaughter convictions had Thessen burned down 14 houses, each containing one of his victims. Under that analysis a person convicted of 14 counts of manslaughter under those circumstances is more culpable than a defendant who causes the death of one person by burning down one house. The majority thus seems to reward the defendant for the efficiency of his criminal behavior, by defining the offense in terms of the number of physical acts which produced the unlawful killings.
Each unlawful killing under