PEOPLE OF MI V MELISSA ANN NUTT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 9, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 225887
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 99-167397-FH
MELISSA ANN NUTT,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J, and Whitbeck and Meter, JJ.
HOEKSTRA, P.J., (concurring).
In order for defendant to prevail on her claim that this prosecution violates her
constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy, US Const Am V; Const 1963, art 1, § 15, both
parts of the “same transaction” test must be satisfied. They are that all offenses against a
defendant must be joined together if 1) they grow out of a “continuous time sequence” and 2) the
charges display “a single intent and goal.” People v Sturgis, 427 Mich 392, 401; 397 NW2d 783
(1986); People v McMiller, 202 Mich App 82, 85; 507 NW2d 812 (1993). I conclude that the
evidence demonstrates a “continuous time sequence,” but that the two offenses do not display “a
single intent and goal.” Consequently, I find that the order dismissing the charge against
defendant of receiving or concealing stolen firearms, MCL 750.535b, must be reversed.
In deciding whether the evidence establishes a “continuous time sequence,” the lead
opinion and the dissent in section II C seem to suggest that the result is controlled by prior
decisions of this Court. Although instructive, I do not believe either is controlling because the
time sequence decision requires a case-by-case analysis of the facts peculiar to the case and an
assessment based on those facts regarding whether the time sequence part of the same transaction
test has been met. Here, I agree with the section II B of the dissenting opinion as it pertains to
the time sequence analysis. The facts and circumstances present in this case establish that the
events were part of a continuous criminal episode.
However, I agree with the lead opinion that the two charges do not share “a single intent
and goal.” My opinion on this issue is stated succinctly and well in this Court’s opinion in
People v Squires, 240 Mich App 454, 458-459; 613 NW2d 361 (2000). Although the charges
here are slightly different, the reasoning of Squires is equally applicable. Consequently, the
second part of the “same transaction” test is not met and defendant’s claim that this prosecution
-1-
violates double jeopardy must fail.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.