Blockburger v. United States
284 U.S. 299 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where a single act violates two distinct statutory provisions, the test to determine if there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.
Facts:
- Blockburger sold ten grains of morphine hydrochloride to a purchaser.
- This first sale was not made in or from the original stamped package as required by federal law.
- Shortly after the first sale was completed, the same purchaser paid Blockburger for an additional quantity of morphine.
- On the following day, Blockburger delivered a second quantity of eight grains of morphine to the same purchaser.
- This second sale was also not made from the original stamped package.
- Additionally, the second sale was made without a written order from the purchaser, which was also required by federal law.
Procedural Posture:
- Blockburger was charged in a five-count indictment in federal trial court for violating the Harrison Narcotic Act.
- A jury returned a guilty verdict against Blockburger on counts two, three, and five.
- The trial court sentenced him to five years imprisonment and a $2,000 fine on each count, with the prison terms to run consecutively.
- Blockburger, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The U.S. Supreme Court then granted review of the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a single act that violates two distinct statutory provisions constitute two separate offenses, for which cumulative punishment may be imposed, if each provision requires proof of a fact that the other does not?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Sutherland
Yes, a single act violating two distinct statutory provisions constitutes two separate offenses if each requires proof of a different element. The court addressed two separate issues. First, it held that the two sales on consecutive days were distinct offenses, not a single continuous act. The first sale had concluded before the second was initiated by a 'new bargain,' making each sale a separate impulse and a distinct violation. Second, concerning the single sale that violated two statutes (selling not from a stamped package and selling without a written order), the court established what is now known as the Blockburger test. It adopted the rule from Gavieres v. United States, stating that if each statute requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not, then they constitute two separate offenses. Here, one offense required proof of the absence of a tax stamp, while the other required proof of the absence of a written order. Since each offense had a unique element, they were distinct offenses for which Blockburger could be separately punished, even though they arose from the same sale.
Analysis:
This case establishes the seminal 'Blockburger test,' also known as the 'same-elements' test, which has become the primary analytical framework for determining whether multiple punishments for a single course of conduct violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The decision solidifies the principle that legislative intent, as discerned from the elements of the statutes, is key to determining the allowable 'unit of prosecution.' The test gives prosecutors significant discretion to charge multiple offenses arising from a single criminal transaction, potentially leading to cumulative sentences and impacting plea bargaining and sentencing outcomes.
Unlock the full brief for Blockburger v. United States