Missouri v. Hunter
459 U.S. 359, 103 S.Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment is not violated when a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishment under two statutes, even if those two statutes proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test.
Facts:
- On November 24, 1978, the respondent and two accomplices entered an A&P supermarket in Kansas City, Missouri.
- The respondent ordered the store manager at gunpoint to open two safes.
- During the robbery, the respondent struck the manager twice with the butt of his revolver.
- An employee alerted a nearby off-duty police officer, who confronted the three men as they were leaving.
- The respondent fired a shot at the officer before he and his accomplices escaped.
- The respondent was later apprehended and made an oral and written confession to the crimes.
Procedural Posture:
- The respondent was convicted in a Missouri trial court of robbery in the first degree, armed criminal action, and assault with malice.
- The respondent was sentenced to concurrent terms of 10 years for robbery and 15 years for armed criminal action, plus a consecutive 5-year term for assault.
- The respondent appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, arguing that his sentences for both robbery and armed criminal action violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The Missouri Court of Appeals, relying on Missouri Supreme Court precedent, agreed and reversed the conviction and sentence for armed criminal action.
- The State's motion for rehearing or transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court was denied by the Court of Appeals.
- The Missouri Supreme Court denied the State's petition for review.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals.
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 the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibit a state from prosecuting and punishing a defendant in a single trial for both armed criminal action and the underlying felony of first-degree robbery, when the state legislature has clearly authorized cumulative punishments for both offenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. The Double Jeopardy Clause's protection against multiple punishments for the same offense is limited to ensuring that the sentencing court does not prescribe a greater punishment than the legislature intended. Where a legislature has made its intent to impose cumulative punishments crystal clear, the imposition of such sentences in a single trial does not violate the Constitution. The Blockburger test, which determines if two offenses are the 'same,' is a rule of statutory construction to discern legislative intent when it is unclear, not a constitutional rule that overrides clear legislative authorization. Because the Missouri Legislature explicitly authorized punishment for both first-degree robbery and armed criminal action, the cumulative sentences are constitutionally permissible.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The Double Jeopardy Clause forbids multiple punishments for the 'same offence,' and this prohibition should apply equally to legislatures as it does to courts. First-degree robbery and armed criminal action constitute the same offense under the Blockburger test, as the former is a lesser-included offense of the latter. The constitutional meaning of 'the same offence' should not change based on legislative intent, otherwise, a legislature could circumvent the clause by simply creating nominally distinct crimes for the same conduct. Allowing multiple convictions for a single act unfairly increases the prosecution's leverage, subjects the defendant to greater stigma, and triggers more severe collateral consequences.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the Double Jeopardy Clause's protection against multiple punishments. It establishes that legislative intent is the ultimate touchstone in determining whether cumulative sentences imposed in a single trial are permissible. By treating the Blockburger test as a rule of statutory construction rather than a fixed constitutional command, the Court granted state legislatures broad authority to define crimes and structure punishments. This holding limits the judiciary's role in this area, shifting the focus from a judicial analysis of offense elements to a direct inquiry into legislative purpose, thereby strengthening legislative power to enact statutes that penalize specific aspects of criminal conduct separately.
