Whalen v. United States
445 U.S. 684 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cumulative punishments for two offenses unless such punishment is specifically authorized by the legislature. When determining legislative intent, if two offenses constitute the 'same offense' under the Blockburger test, a court must presume that cumulative punishment is not authorized.
Facts:
- The petitioner, Whalen, raped a female victim.
- In the course of perpetrating the rape, Whalen killed the same victim.
Procedural Posture:
- Whalen was tried before a jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, a trial court.
- The jury convicted Whalen of first-degree murder (for a killing in the perpetration of a rape) and rape.
- The trial court sentenced Whalen to consecutive prison terms of 20 years to life for murder and 15 years to life for rape.
- Whalen, as appellant, appealed his convictions and sentences to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, the highest local court.
- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and the consecutive sentences.
- Whalen petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted.
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 imposition of consecutive sentences for the crimes of rape and first-degree felony murder, where the rape is the predicate felony for the murder conviction, violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment when Congress has not clearly authorized cumulative punishments?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
Yes. The imposition of consecutive sentences for rape and felony murder under these circumstances violates the Double Jeopardy Clause because Congress did not authorize cumulative punishment for these offenses. The central question is what punishments the legislative branch has authorized. Under D.C. Code § 23-112, Congress adopted the Blockburger test, which states that two offenses are the same for punishment purposes unless each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not. In this case, to convict Whalen of felony murder based on rape, the prosecution was required to prove every element of the underlying crime of rape. Therefore, rape is a lesser-included offense of the felony murder as charged, and the two offenses are the 'same' under the Blockburger test, barring consecutive sentences.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The imposition of consecutive sentences does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause and should be affirmed. The issue is purely one of statutory construction, not a constitutional question, and the Court should defer to the D.C. Court of Appeals' interpretation of local law. The majority misapplies the Blockburger test by looking at the offenses as charged in the indictment rather than at the statutory elements in the abstract. Abstractly, felony murder can be based on several different predicate felonies, so it does not necessarily require proof of rape, and rape does not require proof of a killing. Under a proper application of the Blockburger test, the offenses are separate, and Congress should be presumed to have intended to permit cumulative punishment.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes, but purely on statutory grounds. The question is one of statutory construction concerning D.C. Code § 23-112 and does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause. Had Congress explicitly authorized cumulative punishments for these offenses, the imposition of such sentences would not violate the Constitution.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The judgment is correct based on statutory construction. The only function of the Double Jeopardy Clause in the context of multiple punishments imposed at a single trial is to prevent a court from imposing greater punishment than the legislature intended. The Clause places no independent constitutional limit on the legislature's power to define offenses and prescribe punishments. If Congress had clearly intended to impose cumulative punishments for felony murder and the underlying felony, it would have been constitutionally permissible to do so.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that the constitutional protection against multiple punishments is primarily a check on judicial power, ensuring that courts do not exceed the punitive authority granted by the legislature. It solidifies the Blockburger test as the default standard for determining legislative intent regarding cumulative punishments, absent a clear statement to the contrary. The Court's decision to apply the test to the offenses 'as charged' rather than 'in the abstract' has significant implications for compound crimes like felony murder, making it much more difficult for prosecutors to secure separate, consecutive sentences for a predicate felony and the resulting compound offense.
Unlock the full brief for Whalen v. United States