Blockburger v. United States
| Blockburger v. United States | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 24, 1931 Decided January 4, 1932 |
|
| Full case name | Blockburger v. United States |
| Citations | 284 U.S. 299 (more)
284 U.S. 299
|
| Prior history | On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit |
| Holding | |
| Where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sutherland, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const., Amend. V, Harrison Narcotics Act | |
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States set an important standard to prevent double jeopardy.
The defendant was charged with violations of the Harrison Narcotics Act; specifically, he was indicted on five separate counts, all involving the sale of morphine to the same purchaser.
The jury returned a verdict against petitioner upon the second, third, and fifth counts only. The second count charged a sale on a specified day of ten grains of the drug not in or from the original stamped package; the third count charged a sale on the following day of eight grains of the drug not in or from the original stamped package; the fifth count charged the latter sale also as having been made not in pursuance of a written order of the purchaser as required by the statute. The district court sentenced petitioner to five years' imprisonment and a fine of $2,000 upon each count, the terms of imprisonment to run consecutively; and this judgment was affirmed on appeal by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The defendant advanced two legal theories as his defense:
Justice Sutherland, writing for a unanimous court, first held that the two sales, having been made at different times (albeit to the same person), were two separate and distinct violations of the law. He then held that under the statute, two distinct offenses are created by each section: § 1 of the Act creates the offense of selling any of the forbidden drugs except in or from the original stamped package, and § 2 creates the offense of selling any of such drugs not in pursuance of a written order of the person to whom the drug is sold. Because the defendant had violated both sections, he could be prosecuted separately under the two sections.
As to the issue of whether or not the defendant had been subjected to double jeopardy, Sutherland reasoned that he did not:
...
Wikipedia