People v. Wilson

• Decision Date: 28 May 1997
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 101870,4,Nos. 3,102007,s. 3
• Citation: 454 Mich. 421,563 N.W.2d 44
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amir J. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron L. BANKS, Defendant-Appellant. Calendar
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 44

563 N.W.2d 44

454 Mich. 421

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amir J. WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aaron L. BANKS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket Nos. 101870, 102007.

Calendar Nos. 3, 4.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued Nov. 12, 1996.

Decided May 28, 1997.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Richard Thompson, Prosecuting Attorney, and Joyce F. Todd and Anica Letica, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, Pontiac, for People.

Gary L. Kohut, Birmingham, and Brian R. Sullivan, Southfield, for Defendant in Wilson.

Law Offices of Michael J. Sharpe, P.C. by Michael J. Sharpe, Detroit, for Defendant-Appellant.

Opinion

BRICKLEY, Justice.

The defendants were charged in Oakland County with conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver over 650 grams of a controlled substance. They were previously convicted in Muskegon County of conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver cocaine. Because both prosecutions center on the same dates, witnesses, and evidence, we granted leave to appeal, limited to the double jeopardy implications of the defendants' prosecutions in Oakland County.

We hold that the subsequent prosecution in Oakland County is barred by the Constitution of the United States and the Michigan Constitution. Therefore, the later convictions are reversed and vacated.

I

A

On December 11, 1989, Ronald Gardner, Cato Peterson, Amir Wilson, and Aaron Banks were traveling in a white Cougar automobile from Detroit to Muskegon. Muskegon County Sheriff Deputy Al VanHemert received a tip from a confidential informant that Aaron Banks and several other persons would be transporting crack cocaine to a Muskegon Heights neighborhood that afternoon.

Deputy VanHemert and another deputy, Stanley Berdinski, executed a legal stop and search of the vehicle. The deputies seized approximately 222 grams of crack cocaine and arrested the occupants of the vehicle.

Ronald Gardner, Cato Peterson, and Amir Wilson each made statements to the officers. Mr. Gardner stated that he was paid two hundred dollars by Ricky Franklin to drive Messrs. Peterson, Wilson, and Banks to the Further, Gardner stated that Mr. Franklin was the head of the organization. He stated that cocaine was sometimes transported in the spare tire in the trunk, that the cocaine would be placed into the spare tire at a gas station in Detroit, and the tire would be left behind a warehouse in Muskegon after the cocaine was removed. He knew where Ricky Franklin lived and was willing to show the officers where the warehouse was located. Additionally, Gardner stated he sold drugs for Aaron Banks, that Banks was the boss of the Muskegon operation, and that Franklin gave the drugs to Banks to sell.

Muskegon Heights area and that he had previously transported sellers and drugs to that area. He also stated he had picked up money at the home of "Miss Louise" in Muskegon and transported the cash back to Detroit.

Mr. Peterson stated to the officers that he was traveling to Muskegon to sell crack cocaine, that this was his second trip to Muskegon, and that Mr. Franklin was the head of the organization.

Defendant Wilson also made a statement to the Muskegon authorities after his arrest. He stated that he sold crack cocaine for Ricky Franklin and that he had sold drugs on three previous trips to Muskegon. He stated that Mr. Banks would stay at Miss Louise's house and dispense the crack baggies to the sellers there. Further, he stated that the cocaine was transported in the spare tire in the trunk, that it was easy to recruit sellers from Detroit, and that Mr. Robert Johnson was also involved in the sale of cocaine.

The Muskegon County Prosecutor charged defendants Wilson and Banks with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver between 225 and 650 grams. ¹ The charges were reduced after the cocaine was weighed to possession with intent to deliver between 50 and 225 grams of cocaine and conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver. ²

On June 6, 1990, Amir Wilson was convicted by a Muskegon County jury of possession with intent to deliver and conspiracy to deliver between 50 and 225 grams of cocaine. On July 3, 1990, Mr. Wilson was sentenced to two concurrent prison terms of eight to twenty years. On June 11, 1990, Mr. Banks was convicted in Muskegon County of possession of less than 50 grams of cocaine ³ and conspiracy to possess less than 25 grams ⁴ arising out of the December 11, 1989, arrest. He was sentenced to ten to twenty years in prison and two years eight months to four years in prison, respectively. ⁵

B

On July 5, 1990, Southfield police arrested Gerald Hill for possession with intent to deliver between 225 and 649 grams of cocaine. ⁶ Oakland County officials began an investigation into Mr. Franklin's drug activities. At this time, the Muskegon and Oakland Counties Sheriff Departments joined efforts to investigate the "Franklin organization."

In December 1990, an Oakland County citizens grand jury indicted Messrs. Wilson, Banks, Hill, Johnson, and another individual, Terrence Moore, ⁷ on charges of conspiring from October 1988 to December 1990 to possess Defendants Wilson and Banks moved to set aside the indictment on the basis of a violation of double jeopardy. Their motion was denied. Messrs. Wilson, Banks, Hill, and Johnson were jointly tried in September of 1991. Messrs. Wilson and Banks renewed their motion to dismiss at trial, and, again, the motion was denied. After the second trial, defendant Wilson was found guilty of conspiracy to deliver between 50 and 250 grams of cocaine. Defendant Banks was found guilty of conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver more than 650 grams of cocaine. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. ⁹ We granted leave, limited to the double jeopardy issue. 450 Mich. 904, 543 N.W.2d 308 (1995).

with intent to deliver over 650 grams of cocaine. ⁸

II

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "[n]o person shall ... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...." The Fifth Amendment double jeopardy protections are applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). "The language of the Michigan Constitution's double jeopardy provision is substantially similar to that of the United States Constitution." People v. Mezy, 453 Mich. 269, 279, 551 N.W.2d 389 (1996). Michigan's Constitution, art. 1, § 15, declares that "[n]o person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy." Further, Michigan had codified the guarantee against double jeopardy. ¹⁰

The double jeopardy guarantee protects against successive prosecutions for the same offense and protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). The double jeopardy protections are inherent in our system of jurisprudence because we believe that

the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty. [Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-188, 78 S.Ct. 221, 223-224, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957).]

We follow the federal rule that if a defendant can make a prima facie showing of a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, a second prosecution is barred unless the government can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence why double jeopardy principles do not bar prosecution. Mezy, supra at 277, 551 N.W.2d 389.

In order to make a prima facie case of double jeopardy, the defendant must show that he was prosecuted twice for the same offense. The same offense includes prosecution for a greater crime after conviction of the lesser included offense. See Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 169, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2227, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). Conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver 50 to 224 grams of cocaine is a lesser included offense of conspiracy to possess with intent to deliver over Initially, in its brief to this Court in Wilson, the prosecution's only argument that more than one conspiracy existed is as follows,

650 grams. See People v. Marji, 180 Mich.App. 525, 531, 447 N.W.2d 835 (1989).

In People v. Mezy, 453 Mich. 269, 551 N.W.2d 389 (1996), this Honorable Court recently discussed the problem of determining whether there were two separate drug conspiracies or only one. A further problem is presented in dealing what the Court of Appeals has previously referred to as a "chain conspiracy." People v. Meredith (On Remand), 209 Mich.App. 403, 531 N.W.2d 749 (1995), lv den 450 Mich. 852, 538 N.W.2d 677 (1995).

As can be seen from the People's counterstatement of facts, drug conspiracies involve many individuals, who may have no knowledge of other conspirators or even the extent of the conspiracy when they become involved in it. In addition, as is again demonstrated in this case, certain individuals may only be known to others by a nickname. Further complicating prosecution in drug offenses is the fear inspired by such organizations, resulting in uncooperative witnesses and, as evidenced by Gardner's and Cato Peterson's statements in this case, a failure to fully disclose their own or others' participation in the conspiracy.[ ¹¹

Contrary to the position of the dissent, the people's argument is not that this Court should find that more than one conspiracy existed, it is that this Court should hold that the Brown exception applies.

Moreover, in the Oakland County case, the people did not charge the defendants with separate conspiracies for agreements that occurred after the December 11,...