People v. Crawford

I respectfully dissent from § ii of the majority opinion in this case because I believe that conviction of and punishment for both ouil and felonious driving on the facts of this case constitute double jeopardy in violation of the state and federal constitutions, US Const, Am V; Const 1963, art 1, § 15.

As noted in the majority opinion, proof of defendant’s intoxication was the sole proof of negligence supporting the felonious driving conviction. Quite obviously, the same proof formed the basis of the ouil conviction. In my view, those facts point inexorably to the conclusion that the two…