transaction test in Michigan

1980Among the approved decisions was that in People v Charles Johnson, 62 Mich App 240 ; 233 NW2d 246 (1975), in which the defendant was convicted and sentenced for prison escape.

1980Among the approved decisions was that in People v Charles Johnson, 62 Mich App 240 ; 233 NW2d 246 (1975), in which the defendant was convicted and sentenced for prison escape.

1991In People v Williams, 61 Mich App 642, 643 ; 233 NW2d 122 (1975), the defendant was charged with assault with intent to commit murder, armed robbery, and breaking and entering an occupied dwelling, and, later, as a result of a plea bargain, pled guilty of the latter charge.

1991In People v Williams, 61 Mich App 642, 643 ; 233 NW2d 122 (1975), the defendant was charged with assault with intent to commit murder, armed robbery, and breaking and entering an occupied dwelling, and, later, as a result of a plea bargain, pled guilty of the latter charge.

2025When a statute provides the trial court discretion to impose a consecutive sentence, a decision to do so is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, “i.e., whether the trial court’s decision was outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” People v Norfleet, 317 Mich App 649, 654 ; 897 NW2d 195 (2016) (Norfleet I).

2025When a statute provides the trial court discretion to impose a consecutive sentence, a decision to do so is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, “i.e., whether the trial court’s decision was outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” People v Norfleet, 317 Mich App 649, 654 ; 897 NW2d 195 (2016) (Norfleet I).

2017“Common-law agency principles, which generally apply to powers of attorney, permit an agent to personally engage in a transaction with the principle with consent of the principal after a full disclosure of the details of the transaction.” In re Estate of Cummin, 258 Mich App 402, 407-408 ; 671 NW2d 165 (2003).

2017“Common-law agency principles, which generally apply to powers of attorney, permit an agent to personally engage in a transaction with the principle with consent of the principal after a full disclosure of the details of the transaction.” In re Estate of Cummin, 258 Mich App 402, 407-408 ; 671 NW2d 165 (2003).

2017When legislative intent is not clear, Michigan courts apply the “abstract legal elements” test from Ream, 481 Mich 223 , to determine whether the Legislature intended to classify two offenses as the “same offense” for purposes of double jeopardy.

2017When legislative intent is not clear, Michigan courts apply the “abstract legal elements” test from Ream, 481 Mich 223 , to determine whether the Legislature intended to classify two offenses as the “same offense” for purposes of double jeopardy.

1981Wayne County Prosecutor v Recorder's Court Judge, 92 Mich App 433, 442 ; 285 NW2d 318 (1979), People v Kenneth Smith, 69 Mich App 537, 539 , 245 NW2d 125 (1976), People v Goans, 59 Mich App 294, 297 ; 229 NW2d 422 (1975). *136 My reading of the record leads me to conclude that defense counsel was unaware of the exception to the single transaction requirement as found in People v Goans, supra .

1981Wayne County Prosecutor v Recorder's Court Judge, 92 Mich App 433, 442 ; 285 NW2d 318 (1979), People v Kenneth Smith, 69 Mich App 537, 539 , 245 NW2d 125 (1976), People v Goans, 59 Mich App 294, 297 ; 229 NW2d 422 (1975). *136 My reading of the record leads me to conclude that defense counsel was unaware of the exception to the single transaction requirement as found in People v Goans, supra .

1976Jurisdictions in which the same transaction test has been adopted by court decision include: Missouri, State v Richardson, 460 SW2d 537 (Mo, 1970); Tennessee, Walton v State, 448 SW2d 690 (Tenn Crim App, 1969); Georgia, Burnam v State, 2 Ga App 395; 58 SE 683 (1907); North Carolina, State v Bell, 205 NC 225; 171 SE 50 (1933); Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v Campana, 452 Pa 233; 304 A2d 432 (1973).

1976NOTES [1] Jurisdictions in which the same transaction test has been adopted by court decision include: Missouri, State v Richardson, 460 SW2d 537 (Mo, 1970); Tennessee, Walton v State, 448 SW2d 690 (Tenn Crim App, 1969); Georgia, Burnam v State, 2 Ga App 395; 58 SE 683 (1907); North Carolina, State v Bell, 205 NC 225; 171 SE 50 (1933); Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v Campana, 452 Pa 233; 304 A2d 432 (1973).

1976Jurisdictions in which the same transaction test has been adopted by court decision include: Missouri, State v Richardson, 460 SW2d 537 (Mo, 1970); Tennessee, Walton v State, 448 SW2d 690 (Tenn Crim App, 1969); Georgia, Burnam v State, 2 Ga App 395; 58 SE 683 (1907); North Carolina, State v Bell, 205 NC 225; 171 SE 50 (1933); Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v Campana, 452 Pa 233; 304 A2d 432 (1973).

1976NOTES [1] Jurisdictions in which the same transaction test has been adopted by court decision include: Missouri, State v Richardson, 460 SW2d 537 (Mo, 1970); Tennessee, Walton v State, 448 SW2d 690 (Tenn Crim App, 1969); Georgia, Burnam v State, 2 Ga App 395; 58 SE 683 (1907); North Carolina, State v Bell, 205 NC 225; 171 SE 50 (1933); Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v Campana, 452 Pa 233; 304 A2d 432 (1973).

1976Jurisdictions in which the same transaction test has been adopted by court decision include: Missouri, State v Richardson, 460 SW2d 537 (Mo, 1970); Tennessee, Walton v State, 448 SW2d 690 (Tenn Crim App, 1969); Georgia, Burnam v State, 2 Ga App 395; 58 SE 683 (1907); North Carolina, State v Bell, 205 NC 225; 171 SE 50 (1933); Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v Campana, 452 Pa 233; 304 A2d 432 (1973).

1976NOTES [1] Jurisdictions in which the same transaction test has been adopted by court decision include: Missouri, State v Richardson, 460 SW2d 537 (Mo, 1970); Tennessee, Walton v State, 448 SW2d 690 (Tenn Crim App, 1969); Georgia, Burnam v State, 2 Ga App 395; 58 SE 683 (1907); North Carolina, State v Bell, 205 NC 225; 171 SE 50 (1933); Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v Campana, 452 Pa 233; 304 A2d 432 (1973).

1976Jurisdictions in which the same transaction test has been adopted by court decision include: Missouri, State v Richardson, 460 SW2d 537 (Mo, 1970); Tennessee, Walton v State, 448 SW2d 690 (Tenn Crim App, 1969); Georgia, Burnam v State, 2 Ga App 395; 58 SE 683 (1907); North Carolina, State v Bell, 205 NC 225; 171 SE 50 (1933); Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v Campana, 452 Pa 233; 304 A2d 432 (1973).

1976NOTES [1] Jurisdictions in which the same transaction test has been adopted by court decision include: Missouri, State v Richardson, 460 SW2d 537 (Mo, 1970); Tennessee, Walton v State, 448 SW2d 690 (Tenn Crim App, 1969); Georgia, Burnam v State, 2 Ga App 395; 58 SE 683 (1907); North Carolina, State v Bell, 205 NC 225; 171 SE 50 (1933); Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v Campana, 452 Pa 233; 304 A2d 432 (1973).

1976"It has long been recognized that crimes separate in nature, although arising out of the same transaction, may be defined and convictions thereon sustained without exposing defendant to double jeopardy (People v Snyder, 214 App Div 742 ; 209 NYS 898 [1925], affd 241 NY 81 ; 148 NE 796 [1925]; People v Skarczewski, 287 NY 826 ; 41 NE2d 99 [1942]; People v Di Lapo, 14 NY2d 170 ; 250 NYS2d 261 ; 199 NE2d 361 [1964])." [8] We agree with the Court of Appeals application of the White rationale in the following cases: People v Rolston, 51 Mich App 146 ; 214 NW2d 894 (1974); People v Joines (On Remand

1976"It has long been recognized that crimes separate in nature, although arising out of the same transaction, may be defined and convictions thereon sustained without exposing defendant to double jeopardy (People v Snyder, 214 App Div 742 ; 209 NYS 898 [1925], affd 241 NY 81 ; 148 NE 796 [1925]; People v Skarczewski, 287 NY 826 ; 41 NE2d 99 [1942]; People v Di Lapo, 14 NY2d 170 ; 250 NYS2d 261 ; 199 NE2d 361 [1964])." [8] We agree with the Court of Appeals application of the White rationale in the following cases: People v Rolston, 51 Mich App 146 ; 214 NW2d 894 (1974); People v Joines (On Remand

1975Finally, without mention of its decision in White, the Supreme Court in People v Jackson, 391 Mich 323 ; 217 NW2d 22 (1974), applied the same transaction test to refute defendant’s double jeopardy claim.

1975Finally, without mention of its decision in White, the Supreme Court in People v Jackson, 391 Mich 323 ; 217 NW2d 22 (1974), applied the same transaction test to refute defendant’s double jeopardy claim.

1976Jurisdictions in which the same transaction test has been adopted by court decision include: Missouri, State v Richardson, 460 SW2d 537 (Mo, 1970); Tennessee, Walton v State, 448 SW2d 690 (Tenn Crim App, 1969); Georgia, Burnam v State, 2 Ga App 395; 58 SE 683 (1907); North Carolina, State v Bell, 205 NC 225; 171 SE 50 (1933); Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v Campana, 452 Pa 233; 304 A2d 432 (1973).

1976NOTES [1] Jurisdictions in which the same transaction test has been adopted by court decision include: Missouri, State v Richardson, 460 SW2d 537 (Mo, 1970); Tennessee, Walton v State, 448 SW2d 690 (Tenn Crim App, 1969); Georgia, Burnam v State, 2 Ga App 395; 58 SE 683 (1907); North Carolina, State v Bell, 205 NC 225; 171 SE 50 (1933); Pennsylvania, Commonwealth v Campana, 452 Pa 233; 304 A2d 432 (1973).

2019Morgan was the one who testified about the STRmix, and so the testimony of the sperm cell was not relevant to the “strong support” for the DNA mixture on SD’s underwear. -5- inference from all the evidence, see Hardiman, 466 Mich at 428 , is that defendant restrained SD with the intent to engage in criminal sexual penetration or criminal sexual contact in violation of MCL 750.349(1)(c).

2004The majority holds that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata because they arose from the same transaction as the claims in Durant v Michigan, 456 Mich 175 ; 566 NW2d 272 (1997) (Durant I), and, thus, could have been filed while that litigation was pending.

2004The majority holds that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by res judicata because they arose from the same transaction as the claims in Durant v Michigan, 456 Mich 175 ; 566 NW2d 272 (1997) (Durant I), and, thus, could have been filed while that litigation was pending.

2004Dixon, supra at 709 n 14; see also Carter v McClaughry, 183 US 367 , 394-395; 22 S Ct 181 ; 46 L Ed 236 (1901) (“[t]he fact that both charges related to and grew out of one transaction made no difference” in determining whether they were the “same offence” under the Fifth Amendment). 15 Instead, the Morey/Blockburger same-elements analysis was consistently applied by the Court, with two limited exceptions, 16 until the Court in Grady, supra, adopted a “same-conduct” rule—a somewhat compromised version of Justice Brennan’s “same transaction” test—as an additional step to be performed in address

2004The tripartite split among the Court of Appeals judges in the case before us exemplifies the difficulty that inheres in the application of the same transaction test, particularly as that test has been muddled by Crampton and the Court of Appeals' "specific intent" jurisprudence. [23] See, for example, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, New College Ed, which defines "offense," in relevant part, as "[a]ny violation or infraction of a moral or social code; a transgression or sin[;]... [a] transgression of law; a crime." [24] "Obviously, the word transaction is broader than

2004FEDERAL SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTIONS PROTECTION AND THE SAME-ELEMENTS TEST Application of the same-elements test, commonly known as the “Blockburger test,” 12 is the well-established method of defining the Fifth Amendment term “same offence.” The test, which has “deep historical roots,” United States v Dixon, 509 US 688, 704 ; 113 S Ct 2849 ; 125 L Ed 2d 556 (1993), “focuses on the statutory elements of the offense.

2004FEDERAL SUCCESSIVE PROSECUTIONS PROTECTION AND THE SAME-ELEMENTS TEST Application of the same-elements test, commonly known as the “Blockburger test,” 12 is the well-established method of defining the Fifth Amendment term “same offence.” The test, which has “deep historical roots,” United States v Dixon, 509 US 688, 704 ; 113 S Ct 2849 ; 125 L Ed 2d 556 (1993), “focuses on the statutory elements of the offense.

2002See Baltimore S S Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316, 321 , 47 S.Ct. 600 , 71 L.Ed. 1069 (1927); Tomiyasu v. Golden, 81 Nev. 140, 142-143 , 400 P.2d 415 (1965).

2002See Baltimore S S Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316, 321 , 47 S.Ct. 600 , 71 L.Ed. 1069 (1927); Tomiyasu v. Golden, 81 Nev. 140, 142-143 , 400 P.2d 415 (1965).

2002Jackson, supra at 46 .

2002In Cuellar, supra at 22 , the Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the five sales were part of a “unitary supply contract” to the undercover agent and therefore part of the same transaction.