Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
COMMONWEALTH v. Michael MULLER.
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of assault by means of a dangerous weapon, G.L. c. 265, § 15B (b ), and armed robbery, G.L. c. 265, § 17, based on evidence that the defendant entered a convenience store, approached the cashier, and offered to “split the money” in the cash register with the cashier. When the cashier refused, the defendant removed a handgun from his jacket, placed the handgun on the counter, and demanded money. The cashier complied. The Appeals Court affirmed the convictions in an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 1:28. Commonwealth v. Muller, 77 Mass.App.Ct. 1118 (2010). We granted the defendant's application for further appellate review, limited to the question whether the convictions of armed robbery and assault by means of a dangerous weapon were duplicative. We affirm.
For the reasons explained in Commonwealth v. Anderson, ante at (2012), in determining whether convictions are duplicative, “we adhere to the elements-based approach, and reject the closely related conduct approach.” Id., citing Commonwealth v. Vick, 454 Mass. 418, 433–435, 910 N.E.2d 339 (2009). Because “armed robbery has a required element—the theft of money or property—that is not required to prove assault by means of a dangerous weapon, and assault by means of a dangerous weapon has a required element—the use of a dangerous weapon to commit the assault—that is not required to prove armed robbery,” Commonwealth v. Anderson, supra at, the two convictions are not duplicative.1
Judgments affirmed.
FOOTNOTES
1. We do not consider the defendant's claim that, in light of Commonwealth v. Santos, 440 Mass. 281, 797 N.E.2d 1191 (2003), this holding results in an ex post facto violation. The claim was not made in the Superior Court, the Appeals Court, or in the application for further appellate review.
RESCRIPT.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: SJC–10891.
Decided: March 09, 2012
Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)