The Supreme Court of Michigan upheld a felony conviction against a man who stabbed another man at a birthday party.
The ruling was touted by Michigan's Democratic attorney general Dana Nessel, who sought to uphold the conviction against Benjamin K. McKewen.
In 2017, a jury convicted McKewen for attacking a victim at a birthday gathering. The defendant "pushed the victim in the chest and the victim's chest began to bleed," the Supreme Court's opinion notes.
"Although no one saw defendant with a knife, the victim's treating physicians concluded that the victim had been stabbed."
McKewen was sentenced to concurrent terms of five to 10 years in prison for assault with intent to do great bodily harm and two to four years for felonious assault.
McKewen appealed, and the Court of Appeals vacated the conviction for felonious assault in 2018 on the basis that his offenses were mutually exclusive.
The Supreme Court reversed 5-2, restoring the conviction for felonious assault.
The central question in the case was whether McKewen's convictions violated the constitutional double-jeopardy protection against multiple punishments for the same offense.
The Supreme Court admitted that there are conflicting intents in the two statutes: felonious assault applies to an assault without intent to inflict great bodily harm, conflicting with the crime of assault with intent to do great bodily harm.
While acknowledging this tension, the court found that the legislature authorized multiple punishments in its intent to do great bodily harm statute. The Supreme Court pointed to language that allows a person to be charged with "any other violation of law arising out of the same conduct."
"We hold that defendant's convictions for both AWIGBH and felonious assault arising out of the same act do not violate constitutional double-jeopardy protections because the AWIGBH statute authorizes multiple punishments for the same conduct," the justices ruled.
Chief Justice Elizabeth T. Clement dissented, joined by Kyra Harris Bolden.
The "without intending" language in the felonious assault statute makes it clear that the crime cannot be charged at the same time as intent to do great bodily harm, Clement said.
If the majority's analysis is correct, then the "without intending" language would be meaningless, Clement added.
In any event, the court's ruling was hailed by attorney general Dana Nessel, a close ally of Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D).
"This decision reaffirms justice for victims of violent crimes and ensures that those who commit such acts are held fully accountable under the law," Nessel said in a statement.
