-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Counts
- Thread starter skale7179
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
CavemanLawyer
Senior Member
Its an interesting question but there's no easy answer.
This is extremely simplified but... you can theoretically get charged with a separate count for each victim affected or each separate time the offense occurred in its own transaction.
For multiple victims picture buying a keg of alcohol for your minor neighbor. That is the crime of purchasing/furnishing alcohol to a minor. But if you invite over 9 of his minor friends, you've now got 10 counts of the same crime.
For separate incidents, imagine throwing one of these parties in January and then another one in February. You could theoretically have 10 counts arising out of each. But if the two parties are too close in time to one another it could be considered the same criminal episode and would just be a single count, or in this case a single group of 10 counts.
But as I said, this is overly simplified. Some statutes regulate how multiple counts can be filed. For instance in many jurisdictions a simple DWI becomes a felony if there is a child passenger. In such cases, the child is listed as the "victim" of the crime. Yet in some jurisdictions you can be charged with multiple counts if there are multiple children in the car, while in other jurisdictions you can have a whole litter in the car and its still just one count of DWI with child passenger.
Finally, the State may always elect to proceed on just some counts for various reasons. Imagine you've got prolonged sexual abuse of a child. There might be 30 individual transactions of the same offense, but they all kinda blend into the same 5 year period. You wouldn't want to charge each transaction separately because then you've got to prove each one, including the specific date it happened, individually. Its better to just charge the one count and use all instances as evidence of the defendant's intent to commit the crime once. Then the jury must just believe it happened at some point over those 5 years. They don't have to be unanimous on which specific occasion it occurred. (there are exceptions to this too though for crimes against specific conduct. Like I said, there's no easy answer.)
Finally, the State has to be practical about charging crimes. They look like schmucks if they charge somebody with 20 counts of what are fundamentally the same offense. The bottom line is that the sentence is going to run concurrently if the counts are tried together so it doesn't matter how many counts they are convicted of, the jury is still going to take the whole story into consideration and sentence them to X number of years in jail or on probation. And the Defendant always has the right to be tried separately on each count which, though usually highly prejudicial to the Defendant, means the state now has to try the same Defendant over and over again.
Most of the time that you hear about people getting charged with many many counts, its Federal prosecution and they're trying to make an example of the person.
This is extremely simplified but... you can theoretically get charged with a separate count for each victim affected or each separate time the offense occurred in its own transaction.
For multiple victims picture buying a keg of alcohol for your minor neighbor. That is the crime of purchasing/furnishing alcohol to a minor. But if you invite over 9 of his minor friends, you've now got 10 counts of the same crime.
For separate incidents, imagine throwing one of these parties in January and then another one in February. You could theoretically have 10 counts arising out of each. But if the two parties are too close in time to one another it could be considered the same criminal episode and would just be a single count, or in this case a single group of 10 counts.
But as I said, this is overly simplified. Some statutes regulate how multiple counts can be filed. For instance in many jurisdictions a simple DWI becomes a felony if there is a child passenger. In such cases, the child is listed as the "victim" of the crime. Yet in some jurisdictions you can be charged with multiple counts if there are multiple children in the car, while in other jurisdictions you can have a whole litter in the car and its still just one count of DWI with child passenger.
Finally, the State may always elect to proceed on just some counts for various reasons. Imagine you've got prolonged sexual abuse of a child. There might be 30 individual transactions of the same offense, but they all kinda blend into the same 5 year period. You wouldn't want to charge each transaction separately because then you've got to prove each one, including the specific date it happened, individually. Its better to just charge the one count and use all instances as evidence of the defendant's intent to commit the crime once. Then the jury must just believe it happened at some point over those 5 years. They don't have to be unanimous on which specific occasion it occurred. (there are exceptions to this too though for crimes against specific conduct. Like I said, there's no easy answer.)
Finally, the State has to be practical about charging crimes. They look like schmucks if they charge somebody with 20 counts of what are fundamentally the same offense. The bottom line is that the sentence is going to run concurrently if the counts are tried together so it doesn't matter how many counts they are convicted of, the jury is still going to take the whole story into consideration and sentence them to X number of years in jail or on probation. And the Defendant always has the right to be tried separately on each count which, though usually highly prejudicial to the Defendant, means the state now has to try the same Defendant over and over again.
Most of the time that you hear about people getting charged with many many counts, its Federal prosecution and they're trying to make an example of the person.
Last edited:
CavemanLawyer
Senior Member
Flyingron: I disagree. Fines can cumulate, yes, but jail/probation time does not. If there are pending cases than the State must file a motion to stack sentences in order for them to run consecutively. The judge must grant that motion and its not typically done except in fairly egregious cases.
There are statutory exceptions where the time may run consecutively automatically, but this is not the norm. When someone is convicted of multiple counts they typically serve out the longest sentence on any single count.
skale7179: If someone is charged with 10 counts of something as opposed to 1, that is more serious because there is always the possibility that the sentences could be stacked. It also means that they face the possibility of multiple convictions even if the overall punishment is the same. 10 convictions on your record looks worse than 1, even if you serve 1 year in jail either way.
There are statutory exceptions where the time may run consecutively automatically, but this is not the norm. When someone is convicted of multiple counts they typically serve out the longest sentence on any single count.
skale7179: If someone is charged with 10 counts of something as opposed to 1, that is more serious because there is always the possibility that the sentences could be stacked. It also means that they face the possibility of multiple convictions even if the overall punishment is the same. 10 convictions on your record looks worse than 1, even if you serve 1 year in jail either way.
ok, lets say person A murders person B.
Person A is charged with one count of 1st degree murder.
More specifically I guess what I want to know is, is it 1 count because person A murdered 1 person? and dont people usually get charged with more than 1 count in a charge as serious as 1st degree murder?
Person A is charged with one count of 1st degree murder.
More specifically I guess what I want to know is, is it 1 count because person A murdered 1 person? and dont people usually get charged with more than 1 count in a charge as serious as 1st degree murder?
Some Random Guy
Senior Member
Each "count" is a crime for which they are being accused. If only one person is killed and they are only killed once 
, then that is only one count of murder.
Some counts are more serious than others. For example, person A may kill person B. He may be charged with
First Degree Murder
Abuse of a corpse (disposing of the body)
Obstruction of justice (concealing evidence from the police)
Felony evading (leading the cops on a highway chase)
Possession of a firearm by a felon
Assault (spitting on the arresting officer)
Each count is for a separate thing that person A is accused of doing. Each count may have different penalties and may have more or less importance to the prosecution. For example, if person A was willing to plead guilty to the murder charge, I would think that the procecuciton would gladly drop the other charges to make the deal.
, then that is only one count of murder. Some counts are more serious than others. For example, person A may kill person B. He may be charged with
First Degree Murder
Abuse of a corpse (disposing of the body)
Obstruction of justice (concealing evidence from the police)
Felony evading (leading the cops on a highway chase)
Possession of a firearm by a felon
Assault (spitting on the arresting officer)
Each count is for a separate thing that person A is accused of doing. Each count may have different penalties and may have more or less importance to the prosecution. For example, if person A was willing to plead guilty to the murder charge, I would think that the procecuciton would gladly drop the other charges to make the deal.
FlyingRon
Senior Member
You are correct for Illinois (except for a few heinous crimes).
In Virginia, sentences always run consecutively unless explicitly stated otherwise.
CavemanLawyer
Senior Member
skale, in order to raise a separate count there must actually be a separate crime committed. What you are talking about is submitting a lesser included offense in the jury charge. In that case there is only one crime charged, but when the jury charge is submitted to the jury for them to decide what to convict on, you submit an alternative lesser included offense. Its one that contains the same elements as the original offense, just minus some.
For example, Defendant attacks someone with a bat. The victim knows they were beaten but had their eyes closed during the assault and aren't sure that they were struck with the bat or with the person's hands. The State would file one charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, (the bat.) They'd submit that crime and ask the jury to convict, but in the charge it may say that if you find not guilty on this crime than you shall consider whether the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense of Assault. The Assault charge has the same elements as the Agg Assault case, just minus the weapon. That way you can still get a conviction on something.
But whether to submit a lesser included is sorta matter of preference. Often if the jury is hung up on the original offense, they settle on the lesser included. Basically they compromise. When I was a prosecutor I always swung for the fences and never included a lesser included unless the person was on probation or parole and the lesser charge could get them revoked as well. If the jury is waivering on more serious offense, they are much more apt to find not guilty if they know the person will at least get some punishment on the lesser charge. I think its best to force them consider that they either convict or this person walks away scott free.
For example, Defendant attacks someone with a bat. The victim knows they were beaten but had their eyes closed during the assault and aren't sure that they were struck with the bat or with the person's hands. The State would file one charge of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, (the bat.) They'd submit that crime and ask the jury to convict, but in the charge it may say that if you find not guilty on this crime than you shall consider whether the defendant is guilty of the lesser offense of Assault. The Assault charge has the same elements as the Agg Assault case, just minus the weapon. That way you can still get a conviction on something.
But whether to submit a lesser included is sorta matter of preference. Often if the jury is hung up on the original offense, they settle on the lesser included. Basically they compromise. When I was a prosecutor I always swung for the fences and never included a lesser included unless the person was on probation or parole and the lesser charge could get them revoked as well. If the jury is waivering on more serious offense, they are much more apt to find not guilty if they know the person will at least get some punishment on the lesser charge. I think its best to force them consider that they either convict or this person walks away scott free.
This doesn't really go with counts but in a way it does, my nephew was arrested in spring for possession of controlled substance (misdemeanor) 16 Counts! But reading through the police report it seems a lot of the counts are basically repeated, and for a few of them it states "Misbranding of a controled substance" I was just wondering, not that it matters now as the case is near over, but since they were prescription drugs (anti depressants) but not his how is that Misbranding? Its not like he made them or scratched the labels off or am I missing that.
To go back to the counts question can they really repeat the counts like that but just word it differently?
To go back to the counts question can they really repeat the counts like that but just word it differently?
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">