Commonwealth v. Michael Muller,

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court,

Opinion Issued March 9, 2012,

Subject:  Duplicitous Charges. 

Defendant appealed his conviction for both armed robbery and assault by means of a dangerous weapon.  He contends that the convictions of both are duplicative.  The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld the convictions citing an additional element required to prove each crime

The facts are as follows:  The Defendant entered a convenience store, approached the cashier, and offered to “split the money” in the cash register with the cashier.  When the cashier refused, the defendant removed a handgun from his jacket, placed the handgun on the counter, and demanded money. The cashier complied.

The Court analyzed this case as they did Commonwealth v. Anderson (also decided March 9, 2012) concluding that ‘a defendant may properly be punished for two crimes arising out of the same course of conduct provided that each crime requires proof of an element that the other does not.’ Commonwealth v. Valliere, 437 Mass. 366, 371 (2002).

Quoting from the opinion in Commonwealth v. Anderson (opinion rendered March 9, 2012),

A conviction of armed robbery is not duplicative of a conviction of assault by means of a dangerous weapon. The elements of the crime of armed robbery are that a defendant, while armed with a dangerous weapon, assaulted another person, and took money or property from the person with the intent to steal it. G.L. c. 265, § 17. A defendant need not have used or displayed the dangerous weapon during the robbery; it is sufficient that the prosecutor prove that the robber possessed the dangerous weapon during the robbery. See Commonwealth v. Rogers, supra at 252 n. 4. In contrast, the elements of assault by means of a dangerous weapon are that a defendant committed an assault, and that the assault was committed by means of a dangerous weapon. G.L. c. 265, § 15B (b ). See Commonwealth v. Santos, 440 Mass. 281, 293 (2003). Therefore, armed robbery has a required element–the theft of money or property–that is not required to prove assault by means of a dangerous weapon, and assault by means of a dangerous weapon has a required element–the use of a dangerous weapon to commit the assault–that is not required to prove armed robbery. Id. The two convictions are therefore not duplicative. See Commonwealth v. Vick, supra.

For the full opinion, please reference the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court website:  http://www.massreports.com/slipops/