State v. Boucher
| Decision Date | 10 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 41840,41840 |
| Citation | 286 Minn. 475,176 N.W.2d 624 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Gary E. BOUCHER, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Uninterrupted course of reckless driving through four municipalities held to be a single behavioral incident for which defendant can be prosecuted and punished only once in light of Minn.St. 609.035.
James J. Boyd, Public Defender of St. Paul and Sy Doffing, Asst. Public Defender, St. Paul, for appellant.
Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Wm. B. Randall, Co. Atty., St. Paul, Robert E. O'Connell (Deceased), City Atty., Daniel Klas and Thomas Mooney, Asst. City Attys., for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and ROGOSHESKE, SHERAN, PETERSON and FRANK T. GALLAGHER, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of conviction of reckless driving entered January 28, 1969, in the municipal court of the city of St. Paul. The stipulated facts giving rise to the conviction are essentially as follows:
At about 3:15 a.m. on January 12, 1969, police officers of the village of Roseville observed defendant-appellant drive through a red light at the intersection of Highway No. 36 and Victoria Street in Roseville and proceed west on Highway No. 36 at a high rate of speed. The officers gave chase, calling for assistance at Highway No. 36 and Lexington Avenue because although they were then traveling at 90 miles per hour, defendant was pulling away. Defendant turned south on Snelling Avenue, ran a stop sign at County Road B, and turned west on County Road B with another squad car in pursuit by this time. At Cleveland Avenue defendant ran a stop sign and turned south on Cleveland in the village of Falcon Heights. He was then traveling at about 80 miles an hour. A Ramsey County sheriff's squad car, red lights and siren engaged, joined the chase at Larpenteur Avenue and Cleveland. Defendant ran a red light there and continued south on Cleveland, entering the city of St. Paul. The officers followed as defendant ran a flashing red light at Como Avenue and Cleveland, turned east on Kasota Avenue, then turned west on Como, and ran a stop sign at Eustis Street and Como and went through two more stop lights on Como. Defendant continued on to 15th Avenue S.E. in Minneapolis, where he turned south, ran a red light at 4th Street and 15th Avenue, ran another red light at 15th and University Avenue, and turned east on University. A University of Minnesota police squad car joined chase, making three in pursuit at this time. Defendant proceeded east toward St. Paul at speeds up to 85 miles per hour, driving through four or five stop signs en route. Reentering St. Paul, he continued east to Prior Avenue, ran a red light and turned south on Prior, where St. Paul squad cars joined chase with lights and sirens on. Defendant ran a red light at Prior and Marshall Avenue, and turned west on Marshall. He abandoned his car on Marshall between Finn Street and Cretin Avenue, ran a short distance to the north, and was there arrested.
Defendant was issued citations for reckless driving by the municipalities of Roseville, St. Paul, and Minneapolis, as well as a citation by the municipality of Falcon Heights for failing to stop for a stop sign. On January 17, 1969, defendant appeared in municipal court in Roseville without counsel, pled guilty to the reckless driving charge, and was sentenced to a $100 fine or 10 days in the Ramsey County workhouse. He served the 10-day sentence. He was then arraigned before the St. Paul municipal court on January 27, 1969, where, with the aid of the St. Paul public defender, he entered a plea of not guilty and moved to dismiss the charges in light of Minn.St. 609.035. The court denied defendant's motion. Defendant waived his right to a jury trial, and the matter was submitted to the court on the stipulated facts. The court found defendant guilty of reckless driving and sentenced him to an additional 83 days in the Ramsey County workhouse, with sentence stayed pending this appeal. A subsequent prosecution against defendant in the Municipal Court of Hennepin County arising from the stipulated facts is also pending.
Defendant contends that his conviction in the Roseville municipal court constitutes a bar to prosecution procedures in the St. Paul municipal court on the ground that both prosecutions were based upon the facts as stipulated or some of those facts, and that said facts jointly constitute 'a person's conduct' within the meaning of § 609.035. Section 609.035 1 reads as follows:
The object of the statute and of our decisions interpreting it is to prevent serialized prosecutions and multiple punishment for conduct constituting a single behavioral incident where such conduct can be said to constitute more than one criminal offense.
In State v. Johnson, 273 Minn. 394, 141 N.W.2d 517, we expressed a test for the application of § 609.035 to ambiguous factual situations. The case involved a course of driving approximately 800 feet in length, for which defendant was charged with driving over the centerline and driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage. Defendant 'entered no plea' to driving while under the influence and requested to be arraigned on the charge of driving over the centerline, to which he pled guilty, with sentencing delayed pending disposition of the charge of driving while under the influence. On petition for a writ of prohibition, sought on the basis of § 609.035 to prevent prosecution on the charge of driving while under the influence, we stated that 'violations of two or more traffic statutes result from a single behavioral incident where they occur at substantially the same time and place and arise out of a continuous and uninterrupted course of conduct, manifesting an indivisible state of mind or coincident errors of judgment.' 273 Minn. 405, 141 N.W.2d 525. We found the facts of the case to be well within the test as stated, although we refused to enjoin the prosecution, holding that defendant by requesting a special kind of serialized prosecution had waived his protection against multiple prosecution but not his protection against multiple punishment.
In State v. Gladden, 274 Minn. 533, 144 N.W.2d 779, we applied the rule and reasoning of State v. Johnson, Supra, to facts showing a course of driving approximately 8 blocks in length for which defendant was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Carlson
...terrorizing and robbing a victim were a divisible series of incidents rather than a 'single behavioral incident'; and State v. Boucher, 286 Minn. 475, 176 N.W.2d 624 (1970), wherein the defendant's conviction of reckless driving in the Roseville municipal court was held to bar prosecution b......
-
State v. Wybierala
...State v. Fleck, 281 Minn. 247, 161 N.W.2d 309 (1968); State v. Shevchuck, 282 Minn. 182, 163 N.W.2d 772 (1968); State v. Boucher, 286 Minn. 475, 176 N.W.2d 624 (1970); State v. Kooiman, 289 Minn. 439, 185 N.W.2d 534 (1971); State v. Carlson, 291 Minn. 368, 192 N.W.2d 421 (1971); State v. Fi......
-
Smith v. City of Irondale
...evidence, that is, that Smith driving at a high rate of speed in Birmingham crossed into Irondale on the same journey. State v. Boucher, 286 Minn. 475, 176 N.W.2d 624; Huff v. Commonwealth (Ky.), 406 S.W.2d The principle here enunciated is against the salami slicing technique of making one ......
-
Baldwin v. State
...If the former, then each act is punishable separately. . . . If the latter, there can be but one penalty.' See also State v. Boucher (1970), 286 Minn. 475, 176 N.W.2d 624; State v. Willhite (1956), 40 N.J.Super. 405, 124 A.2d 237, where this rationale was applied to void successive reckless......