Does US criminal law have the concept of crime aggregation/absorption?

[Martinus]

Sorry, I don't know the proper English phrase.

Essentially, for example in the Polish legal system, the concept of crime aggregation/absorption is implemented by two rules:

- absorption of a "weaker" crime by a "stronger" one - i.e. if someone takes an action which falls within the scope of more than one criminal law provision, then he is only charged with the crime that carries the highest penalty and he can be sentenced under the "weaker" crime only if he is aquitted of the more serious crime (e.g. if someone drives a car under an influence of alcohol and causes an accident in which someone dies, he will be charged with manslaughter, but will not be separately charged with DUI or dangerous driving).

- aggregation of several crimes remaining in relation to each other into one, continuous crime (e.g. if someone works at a store and steals a packet of cigarettes every day for 30 days, then he is not going to be charged with 30 cases of petty theft, but one case of theft of the item(s) of the value equal to 30 packets of cigarettes).

From various reports about the US criminal law system, it seems to me that these rules do not necessarily apply and I just wanted to clarify that.

[The Minsky Moment]

Absorption is usually referred to as "merger" of a "lesser included offense"

[Grey Fox]

No.

[dps]

Absorption is usually referred to as "merger" of a "lesser included offense"

That doesn't seem to be quite the same thing as Marti is talking about though.

[garbon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_included_offense

[Tonitrus]

Not quite the same, but we do have the "Felony murder rule", which means if Suspect "A" tries to rob a 7-11, and store clerk  "B" pulls out a shotgun and opens fire killing Slurpee-ordering Grandpa "C" over in the corner , then "A" will be charged with the felony murder (not some weenie manslaughter, or criminal negligence) of "C".

[OttoVonBismarck]

I would've expected one of the American lawyers to explain it a bit more, but we have a concept like that but not entirely the same.

If I rob a bank, kidnap one of the tellers, take her back to my house and rape her and then kill her, I will be charged with a lot more than just murder.

However, just as an example because of several aggravating factors mentioned in said escapade, I'd be charged with capital murder (Virginia is a death penalty state.) I wouldn't be charged with manslaughter or second degree murder, because those are "lesser included offenses."

But I could still be charged with hostage taking, but not with kidnapping (kidnapping is a lesser included offense to hostage-taking.)

I'd be charged with rape, but not aggravated sexual battery or sexual battery, because those are lesser included.

But the core crimes: robbing the bank, taking a hostage, rape, murder, would not all aggregate to murder. I couldn't be charged with multiple classes of each core crime, but I would be charged with each crime. If any of the said crimes was especially difficult to prove, it's possible the prosecutor would choose not to pursue it. Say I committed the rape with a condom and clothed her afterward, and disposed of the condom and they had no direct physical evidence I raped her. They'd probably not pursue it unless they had a confession. Reason? Killing someone who I had taken as a hostage still keeps it at capital murder level. If "all" I did was rape and murder, they'd be unwilling to drop either because without an aggravating factor it isn't capital murder, and something like rape, hostage taking, victim being a police officer or young child etc are necessary to kick it up to a gurney and a needle.

[Viking]

Even if this concept doesn't exist, isn't the same effect achieved by sentencing the prisoner to concurrent rather than consecutive terms in prison?

[Martinus]

If I rob a bank, kidnap one of the tellers, take her back to my house and rape her and then kill her, I will be charged with a lot more than just murder.

Well, that wouldn't be absorbed into only murder charges under Polish law either. However, if you were charged with bank robbery there, you wouldn't also be charged with, say, threatening someone with a gun and theft.

I think the second rule (aggregation) I mentioned is more important though, as it seems you guys don't have it and yet noone addressed it.

[Martinus]

Even if this concept doesn't exist, isn't the same effect achieved by sentencing the prisoner to concurrent rather than consecutive terms in prison?

Not necessarily, especially not with respect to the aggregation rule.

[garbon]

I think the second rule (aggregation) I mentioned is more important though, as it seems you guys don't have it and yet noone addressed it.

I would have no idea, though I know they use it often on Law & Order when otherwise statue of limitations would have run out.

http://thelawdictionary.org/continuous-crime/

[Martinus]

I think the second rule (aggregation) I mentioned is more important though, as it seems you guys don't have it and yet noone addressed it.

I would have no idea, though I know they use it often on Law & Order when otherwise statue of limitations would have run out.

http://thelawdictionary.org/continuous-crime/

That's a different thing. We have a concept of continuous crime in Polish law as well, but the one I am describing is called a "sequence of crimes".

It is essentially a sequence of broadly speaking, similar crimes, committed by the same person with a similar modus operandi over an extended period of time, when there are time gaps between individual crimes.

Usually, this applies to people who have made a living out of a crime, such as pick pockets.

For example, the NY guy who killed himself recently, would be most likely charged with a sequence of crimes involving hacking and illegally downloading restricted material, and not, say, 60 separate instances of doing this.

[garbon]

For example, the NY guy who killed himself recently, would be most likely charged with a sequence of crimes involving hacking and illegally downloading restricted material, and not, say, 60 separate instances of doing this.

But he had multiple victims. Are you saying that'd be treated as just one crime?

[Martinus]

For example, the NY guy who killed himself recently, would be most likely charged with a sequence of crimes involving hacking and illegally downloading restricted material, and not, say, 60 separate instances of doing this.

But he had multiple victims. Are you saying that'd be treated as just one crime?

Yes. Although it would probably bump the severity of it based on the total value of the items he stole.

[Sheilbh]

In England, I think the position is that no single indictment should charge a defendant with more than one offence (I'm not sure if this is what you're after and never studied it, so I could be wrong) if it does it can be a duplicitous indictment, which is a formal error that could lead to the defence successfully quashing it. At the same time indictments can't be overloaded.

But it's generally applied practically, here's the CPS's current guidelines:

The following guidelines emerge from the case law:
one offence should be charged in one count if it comprises a single act  - even if the offence has more than one victim or involves activities in respect of more than one item of property;
where two or more acts of a similar nature committed by one or more defendants are connected in time and place of commission, or by common purpose, they can be charged in a single count;
where the wording of the particular statute makes it clear that only one offence is created but provides two or more alternative ways of committing that one offence, then each alternative way should be made the subject of a separate count in the indictment.  The only exception to this is where case law has established that, in a particular case, the placing of alternative ways in the same count will not be regarded as bad for duplicity; and
in any case where there is doubt as to whether the language of the particular statute creates more than one offence, it will always be safer to charge two or more counts.

I think Lord Morris's description of an offence is still good law 'if A attacks B and, in doing so, stabs B five times with a knife, has A committed one offence or five? If A in the dwelling-house of B steals ten different chattels ... it will often be legitimate to bring a single charge in respect of what might be called one activity even though that activity may involve more than one act'.

In your example it could be classed as a continuous offence, again the CPS guidelines:

Continuous offences
The concept of a continuous offence is a legal device that permits the charging of a series of offences of the same type in one count.  This applies where it is not possible to state with certainty which particular activity occurred at a particular time.

For example, in R v Cain (1983) Crim.L.R.802 the defendant had been found in possession of a quantity of goods stolen from his employer over a period of time with no evidence to establish when each item had been taken.  There was nothing wrong with charging all of the items in a single count. 

A continuous offence should be charged as occurring '... between ...' two dates.  The use of '... on divers days ...' is not appropriate and may give rise to an application to quash for duplicity.

But we don't have aggregation, so far as I know, as it exists in Polish law because there's been a number of Supreme Court cases over aggregation within the context of the European Arrest Warrant

As I say I never studied this and haven't looked into it properly, so I could be wrong, but that's my rough understanding