Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

United States v. Dixon

Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal Proceduredouble jeopardyBlockburger testcontemptoverruling GradyDouble Jeopardy Clausecriminal contemptsuccessive prosecutions

Facts

Dixon was released on bond subject to a court order that he commit no criminal offense; after he was found guilty of criminal contempt for possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, the government later sought to prosecute him for that drug offense. Foster was subject to a civil protection order requiring that he not molest, assault, threaten, or physically abuse his estranged wife; after a bench trial he was convicted of criminal contempt for two assaults and acquitted on alleged threats. The government later indicted Foster for simple assault based on one of the same assaults, assault with intent to kill based on another assault, and threatening offenses based on the same alleged threats. The double jeopardy question was whether those later prosecutions could proceed after the prior contempt proceedings.

Issue

Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar a subsequent criminal prosecution when the defendant has already been prosecuted for criminal contempt based on violation of a court order prohibiting the same conduct? More specifically, should the Court apply Blockburger's same-elements test alone, or also Grady's same-conduct test?

Rule

The Double Jeopardy Clause applies to nonsummary criminal contempt proceedings. In successive prosecution cases, the governing test is the Blockburger same-elements test: if each offense contains an element not contained in the other, they are not the same offense; if not, the later prosecution is barred. Grady v. Corbin's same-conduct test is overruled.

🔒

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, a trial judge released Mateo Ruiz pending trial on the condition that he commit no criminal offense. After a noticed hearing with counsel, the judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that Mateo committed felony burglary and convicted him of criminal contempt for violating the release order. The state later files a burglary charge based on the same break-in.

Is the later burglary prosecution barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause?

Explanation. The later prosecution is barred. The majority held that the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to nonsummary criminal contempt because it is a crime in the ordinary sense. In a contempt prosecution based on violation of a court order that expressly incorporates a criminal offense, the incorporated offense functions as a lesser-included offense for Blockburger purposes. Because the burglary charge contains no element not already included in the contempt conviction for violating the release order by committing burglary, the second prosecution is for the same offense.