Charging Greater and Lesser-Included Offenses Separately

Is it proper to charge a defendant separately with a greater offense and with a lesser-included offense? For example, is it proper to charge a defendant with robbery and with larceny arising out of the same taking, even though larceny is a lesser-included offense of robbery? Synthesizing the authorities I could locate on point, it seems that (1) it isn’t necessary to charge in that way, (2) as a general rule, charging in that way is to be avoided, but (3) charging in that way doesn’t create a fatal defect in a pleading. Read on for details, and for my request for information about when this happens in practice. It’s not necessary. “When a defendant is indicted for a criminal offense, he may be convicted of the charged offense or a lesser included offense.” State v. Hudson, 345 N.C. 729 (1997). In other words, charging the greater offense effectively charges the lesser-included offense as well, and it’s not necessary to charge the lesser-included offense separately. It’s to be avoided. Courts have recognized that a charging document that alleges both a greater and a lesser-included offense is multiplicitous, meaning that several counts charge what amounts to the same offense, as measured by the Blockburger test. See, e.g., United States v. Ganadonegro, 854 F.Supp.2d 1088 (D. N.M. 2012) (ruling that “Count 1, charging second-degree murder, and Count 2, charging voluntary manslaughter, are multiplicitous” because “voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of second-degree murder”); Merlina v. Jejna, 90 P.3d 202 (Ariz. Ct. App. [...]