Milanovich v. United States

Background

A husband and wife were tried for stealing several thousand dollars from a commissary at a U.S. naval base. Both were convicted of aiding and abetting the theft; the wife was also convicted of receiving and hiding some of the stolen money found at her home about two weeks later. The husband was sentenced to five years for larceny; the wife received ten years for larceny and a concurrent five-year sentence for receiving. At trial, defense counsel argued that a person who steals cannot be convicted of receiving from themselves, and asked the judge to tell the jury they could convict on one charge but not both.

Reasoning

The Court treated the question as one of how the statutes should be read and relied on an earlier decision saying Congress did not intend to allow cumulative punishment for both stealing and then receiving the same goods. The Court concluded the trial judge should have instructed the jury that it could convict the defendant of either larceny or receiving, but not both. Because the record shows the jury convicted on both counts and it is impossible to tell which verdict a properly instructed jury would have returned, the Court held the wife’s conviction could not stand without a new trial on that issue.

Real world impact

The husband’s conviction was affirmed, but the wife’s receiving conviction was set aside and her case remanded for further proceedings. The decision requires clearer jury instructions in cases charging both theft and receipt of the same property, and may lead to new trials or changed sentences where both convictions were returned.

Dissents or concurrances

A four-Justice dissent argued the two acts were separated in time and were properly charged and tried as distinct transactions, and criticized the majority for ordering a new proceeding.