Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Blockburger v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1932 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal Proceduredouble jeopardysame offense testelements testmultiple chargesdouble jeopardysame offenseelements test

Facts

The indictment contained five counts, but petitioner was convicted only on the second, third, and fifth counts. The second count charged a sale of ten grains of morphine hydrochloride on one day not in or from the original stamped package, and the third count charged a sale of eight grains to the same purchaser on the following day, also not in or from the original stamped package. The fifth count charged that the latter sale was also made not in pursuance of a written order of the purchaser. The evidence showed that after the first sale had been completed, the purchaser paid for an additional quantity, which was delivered the next day.

Issue

Whether the two sales to the same purchaser on successive days constituted only one continuing offense, and whether a single sale that violated both the original-stamped-package requirement and the written-order requirement constituted only one offense or instead two separately punishable offenses.

Rule

Where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test for whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Separate sales are separately punishable when the statute penalizes each prohibited act rather than a continuing course of conduct.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Nolan Price sold a regulated chemical to Dana Reed in a plain plastic pouch. The sale violated a federal statute requiring such chemicals to be sold only in a sealed tax-marked container and also violated a separate federal statute requiring a purchaser's signed authorization form before sale.

If Nolan is convicted and separately sentenced under both statutes for that one sale, which argument is strongest under the governing rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that when the same act violates two distinct statutory provisions, the question is whether each provision requires proof of a fact the other does not. Here, sale outside the required tax-marked container and sale without the purchaser's signed authorization each contains an element the other lacks. The fact that there was only one sale does not merge them into one offense.