Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred a second trial; Ashe v Swenson; Successive prosecutions; People v Miller; Principle that different conduct necessarily indicates different offenses; Separate punishment for each criminal sexual penetration; People v Wilson; Jurisdiction; MCR 7.203(A)(1); “Final judgment” or “final order” (MCR 7.202(6)(ii)) in a criminal case; Mootness

The court held that defendant’s trial in this case was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause because the charges here and in his prior trial involved “different conduct and different incidents of sexual penetration, which are separately punishable.” In 2022, he was charged and tried in a separate case on seven counts of CSC I “for conduct that allegedly occurred between 2002 and 2008 when the victim was under the age of 13.” The trial court in that case granted his motion for a directed verdict. In this case, filed in 2023, he was charged with three counts of CSC I for conduct alleged to have “occurred only in 2009 and 2010, when the victim was still under the age of 13.” He unsuccessfully moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, and was convicted. But the trial court vacated the convictions and ordered a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, he challenged the trial court’s double jeopardy ruling. As an initial matter, the court concluded that it had jurisdiction as to his claim “that his second trial violated his right against double jeopardy[.]” It also found that the issue was not moot. Turning to the merits, it rejected his claim. The issue was whether he “was improperly prosecuted for the same offenses after being acquitted in a previous case.” The court noted that in the 2022 case, he “was not being prosecuted for any offenses that occurred in 2009 or 2010, the timeframe of the alleged incidents charged in this case. Instead, the charges were confined to offenses allegedly committed during the period between 2002 and 2008.” Thus, the charges in the two trials “did not overlap.” This case did not put “the same ‘issue’ . . . in dispute before the jury” given the different timeframes. “Whether some of the testimony implicated a duplicative timeframe is of no moment.” Affirmed.