Legal Opinion

People v. Nutt

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 2, 2004No. Docket 120489PublishedCited by 154 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.

At issue in this case is the prohibition against successive prosecutions found in Const 1963, art 1, § 15, Michigan’s Double Jeopardy Clause. In particular, we are called upon to determine the meaning of the term “same offense” as used in art 1, § 15. Until 1973, Michigan had defined that term to mean the “same crime” such that, where a defendant had committed a series of crimes with different elements, the defendant could be prosecuted serially for each distinct crime, irrespective of whether the crimes were committed during the course of one crime spree or “transaction.” Thus, our Double…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Ashe v. SwensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  4. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957

37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by154 opinions

  1. People v. VaughnMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
  2. People v. MatuszakMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. People v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Wayne County v. HathcockMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 2007

149 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API