## Facts

- A Lapeer County home was burglarized, and firearms plus other property were stolen.
- Police executed a search warrant at a cabin in Oakland County occupied by Melissa Ann Nutt and John Crosley.
- Officers found several of the stolen firearms hidden under a mattress, along with other stolen items.
- Nutt admitted driving Crosley during several burglaries, including the Lapeer County burglary, and admitted she knew guns were in the cabin.
- Nutt pleaded guilty in Lapeer County to second-degree home invasion arising from the burglary.
- Oakland County later charged Nutt with receiving and concealing stolen firearms based on the guns found in the cabin.
- Nutt moved to dismiss the Oakland County case, arguing double jeopardy barred a second prosecution arising from the same criminal episode.

## Issues

1. Under the Michigan Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause, what test defines “same offense” for successive prosecutions: the same-transaction test or the same-elements (Blockburger) test?
2. Under the correct test, does a prior conviction for second-degree home invasion bar a later prosecution for receiving and concealing stolen firearms based on the same stolen guns?

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court held that “same offense” under Const. 1963, art. 1, § 15 is governed by the same-elements (Blockburger) test.
- The court overruled People v. White to the extent it adopted the same-transaction test as a constitutional rule for successive-prosecution double jeopardy.
- Applying the same-elements test, the court held the Oakland County prosecution was not barred because each offense required proof of at least one element the other did not.
- The court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ result allowing the Oakland County case to proceed, though on different reasoning.

## Legal Principles

- For successive prosecutions under Michigan’s Double Jeopardy Clause, two offenses are the “same offense” only if they fail the same-elements (Blockburger) test.
- The same-elements test asks whether each offense requires proof of a fact (statutory element) that the other does not; if so, successive prosecutions are not constitutionally barred.
- Michigan’s “same offense” language in its Double Jeopardy Clause is construed consistently with the identical federal constitutional language absent a clear reason to depart.
- Second-degree home invasion and receiving/ concealing stolen firearms are distinct offenses for double-jeopardy purposes because the former requires unlawful entry/intent or commission in a dwelling, while the latter requires knowing receipt or concealment of stolen firearms.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the same-transaction approach as a state constitutional limit on successive prosecutions, reinstated the Blockburger same-elements test, and held that a home-invasion conviction did not bar a later prosecution for receiving and concealing the stolen firearms found in a different county.


People v. Nutt, 677 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 2004)