School Essay: Blockburger v. United States, Decided January 4, 1932

Blockburger

v.

United States, Decided January 4, 1932

(Cite as:284 U.S. 299)

Facts: The defendant, Mr. Blockburger was charged on five counts of selling prescription drugs in the form of morphine under the Harrison Act, but was only convicted by the jury on the second, third and fifth count (Blockburger v. United States - 284 U.S. 299 (1932)).  In detail, the second count charged him of selling 10 grains of morphine on a specified day, while the third count charged him with selling 8 more grains of morphine not in the original package or from the original container but to the same purchaser the very next day (Blockburger v. United States - 284 U.S. 299 (1932)),  However, Mr. Blockburger made the argument that the second and third count were one in the same which constituted a single offense because he sold the morphine to the same person just on two different days (Blockburger v. United States - 284 U.S. 299 (1932)).  The fifth count charged Mr. Blockburger of having made the second sale to the same buyer not in pursuance of a written order by the buyer, but again, Mr. Blockburger argued that the third and fifth counts comprise the same offense because prohibition for selling narcotics that are not in the original packaging and against selling to a buyer not in pursuance of a written order by the buyer, are found in the same statute (Blockburger v. United States - 284 U.S. 299 (1932)).

Issue: The issue here is whether or not the defendant had been subjected to double jeopardy by asking the question: is it appropriate to charge two offenses when the same act violates two statutory provisions? (Blockburger v. United States 1932).

Holding: Affirmed, due to "multiple offenses committed" (Blockburger v. United States 1932) because the "sales charged in the second and third counts, although made to the same person, were distinct and separate sales made at different times" (Blockburger v. United States - 284 U.S. 299 (1932)).  Further support of this affirmation comes from the fact that the second sale was of a different quantity reinforcing that the second sale was a "fresh one" (Blockburger v. United States - 284 U.S. 299 (1932)).

Reasons: Each of the offenses charged necessitates proof of a different element and if this requirement is fulfilled, then "double jeopardy is not violated" (Blockburger v. United States 1932).

          In closing, the Blockburger case enlisted the Blockburger test which states that a "defendant may be convicted of two offenses arising out of the same criminal incident if each crime contains an element not found in the other" where the "appellate court determines whether each crime contains an element not found in the other by examining only the relevant statute, the information and the bill of particulars, and not the evidence presented at trial (State v. Tweedy, 219 Conn. 489 (Conn. 1991)" (Blockburger Test Law & Legal Definition, 2013).  In short, the U.S. Supreme Court set "this important standard to prevent double jeopardy" in future cases (Blockburger Test Law & Legal Definition, 2013).

Works Cited

Blockburger Test Law & Legal Definition. (2013). Retrieved 04 20, 2013, from US Legal: http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/blockburger-test/

Blockburger v. United States - 284 U.S. 299 (1932). (n.d.). Retrieved 04 20, 2013, from US Supreme Court Center: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/284/299/case.html

Blockburger v. United States 1932. (n.d.). Retrieved 04 20, 2013, from http://www.foofus.net/~foofus/lawSchool/criminal/BlockburgervUnitedStates.html