IRAC of #2B
II. Count Two of the criminal complaint, possession of equipment to manufacture methamphetamine, should be dismissed on the ground that it is a lesser-included offense of Count Three, manufacture of methamphetamine ("meth").
The issue in the present case is whether §43: Possession of Equipment or Supplies with Intent to Manufacture Meth (“Possession of Equipment”) should be dismissed because it is a lesser-included offense of Count Three, §51: Manufacture of Meth. A defendant cannot be charged with the same crime twice, for that would be considered double jeopardy. In order for a court to determine "if one the count constitutes a lesser offense that is included in the other," courts will apply the "Strict Elements Test." Blockburger v. United States. In applying this test, the courts will have to make a comparison of the elements of both offenses. Id. Thus, "if the elements of the greater crime necessarily include the elements of the lesser crime, then the latter offense is a lesser-included offense and prosecution is not allowed for both." Id. Put another way, "a lesser included offense is necessarily included within the greater offense if it is impossible to have committed the greater offense without having first committed the lesser offense." Franklin Criminal Code §5(2). Moreover, "if …show more content…
The court in Decker held that the elements of Burglary were 1) knowingly; and 2) entered and remained unlawfully; and 3) in a building or occupied structure; and 4) with intent to cause bodily injury; and 4) causing serious bodily injury to that person. While the elements of assault are 1) intent to cause bodily injury; and 2) causing serious bodily injury to that person. The court in Decker found that because the elements of assault included the same elements of burglary, which the defendant was also charged with, he could not be convicted of both.
II. Count Two of the criminal complaint, possession of equipment to manufacture methamphetamine, should be dismissed on the ground that it is a lesser-included offense of Count Three, manufacture of methamphetamine ("meth").
The issue in the present case is whether §43: Possession of Equipment or Supplies with Intent to Manufacture Meth (“Possession of Equipment”) should be dismissed because it is a lesser-included offense of Count Three, §51: Manufacture of Meth. A defendant cannot be charged with the same crime twice, for that would be considered double jeopardy. In order for a court to determine "if one the count constitutes a lesser offense that is included in the other," courts will apply the "Strict Elements Test." Blockburger v. United States. In applying this test, the courts will have to make a comparison of the elements of both offenses. Id. Thus, "if the elements of the greater crime necessarily include the elements of the lesser crime, then the latter offense is a lesser-included offense and prosecution is not allowed for both." Id. Put another way, "a lesser included offense is necessarily included within the greater offense if it is impossible to have committed the greater offense without having first committed the lesser offense." Franklin Criminal Code §5(2). Moreover, "if …show more content…
The court in Decker held that the elements of Burglary were 1) knowingly; and 2) entered and remained unlawfully; and 3) in a building or occupied structure; and 4) with intent to cause bodily injury; and 4) causing serious bodily injury to that person. While the elements of assault are 1) intent to cause bodily injury; and 2) causing serious bodily injury to that person. The court in Decker found that because the elements of assault included the same elements of burglary, which the defendant was also charged with, he could not be convicted of both.