green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: Blockburger v. United States ↗
Quoted verbatim 10×
36.5 score
G Cite
cited 6× by 4 distinct cases, 2012–2019 · 3 courts ·
…when, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.
at p. 682
✓
cited 5× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1990 · 2 courts ·
…when, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one
✓
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1999 ·
…hen, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbeiy with firearms, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one
✓
G Cite: 3 distinguished/criticized. Strongest: State v. James (Cited "but see")
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
State v. James
(3×)
hen, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbeiy with firearms, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. Cooper
when, as here, conviction of a greater crime cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
State v. Muhammad
when, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Castillo, Ex Parte Thomas Edward
when, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Chaddock, Ex Parte Jesse
when, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Chaddock, Ex Parte Jesse
when, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Robert Ortega v. William Stephens, Director
(3×)
when, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Walter Esposito
(3×)
when, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Grady v. Corbin
(2×)
when, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the double jeopardy clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Krystal Pinkins
The Supreme Court applied this principle to felony murder in Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 682 (1977): USCA11 Case: 24-10041 Document: 46-1 Date Filed: 02/09/2026 Page: 14 of 23 14 Opinion of the Court 24-10041 When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jackson
See Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292, 297-300, 307 (1996); United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 698 (1993); Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 682 (1977) (per curiam); see also Steele v. Young, 11 F.3d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1993).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Arizona v. Sammantha Lucille Rebecca Allen
Thus, double jeopardy would bar later prosecution of the predicate felony after a conviction for felony murder based on it, see Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 682 (1977), but that is not the case here.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Warden, Noble Correctional Institution
Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 683 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Anderson v. Dwight Neven
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 682 (1977) (per curiam) (“When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Joseph Anderson v. Dwight Neven
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 682 (1977) (per curiam) (“When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Beller
See Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 411-13 (1980) (juvenile was convicted of failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident and was subsequently charged with involuntary manslaughter); Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 682 (1977) (the defendant was convicted of felony murder and later convicted under a separate information of a lesser included crime); United States v. Gooday, 714 F.2d 80, 82 (9th Cir. 1983) (noting that an “acquittal on the explicit charge therefore bars subsequent indictment on the implicit lesser included offenses”). ¶ 19 Stronger support for Beller’s position is Wils…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hart
In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that Harris’s conviction for felony murder, in which the underlying felony was robbery, barred his subsequent prosecution for robbery.14 The Court in Harris stated: “[w]hen, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one.” Harris, 433 U.S. at 682 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Austin v. Cain
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction for the lesser offense, and explained, “[w]hen, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime, after conviction of the greater one.” Id. at 682 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Neisner
Cf. Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 682 (1977) (per curiam) (“When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Littrell, Jared Daniel
Then in Whalen v. United States, the Supreme Court held that rape was a lesser-included offense of felony murder, when the theory of felony murder was killing the same victim in the course of rape.6 The Supreme Court observed that the District of Columbia’s definition of felony murder required proof of a killing and of “the commission or attempted commission of rape or of one of five 3 433 U.S. 682 (1977). 4 Id. at 682 (emphasis added). 5 Id. at 682 n.*. 6 445 U.S. 684 (1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Esco
In reversing the Oklahoma court’s decision, the Supreme Court concluded that since proof of the underlying felony, robbery with firearms, was needed to prove the intent necessary for a felony murder conviction, the offenses were the same for double jeopardy purposes. 433 U.S. at 682 , 97 S.Ct. at 2912, quoting 555 P.2d at 80-81 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Griffin v. State
(2×)
In the present case, the defendant's federal double jeopardy rights would have been violated had he been convicted and sentenced for both felony murder and the underlying felony because the conviction for murder during the commission of a felony would necessarily require proof of the underlying felony. [12] Harris v. Oklahoma, *81 433 U.S. 682, 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2912, 2913 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054, 1056 (1977); Hobson v. State, 675 N.E.2d 1090, 1094 (Ind. 1996); Kennedy v. State, 674 N.E.2d 966, 967 (Ind.1996); Gregory-Bey v. State, 669 N.E.2d 154, 157 (Ind.1996); Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 59 (Ind.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Ursery
As in Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U. S. 410 (1980), and Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U. S. 682 *318 (1977) (per curiam) , the fact that the "greater" offense (here, the forfeiture) could have been proved by means of a different "lesser" offense does not negate the fact that in this instance it was proved by resort to the same elements as the criminal offense.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nos. 94-1285, 94-1290
(2×)
For example, felony murder need not be based on any particular felony, yet in Harris the Court considered a felony murder conviction to bar prosecution for the underlying felony of robbery. 433 U.S. at 682 , 97 S.Ct. at 2912.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. 9844 South Titan Court, Unit 9
(2×)
For example, felony murder need not be based on any particular felony, yet in Harris the Court considered a felony murder conviction to bar prosecution for the underlying felony of robbery. 433 U.S. at 682 , 97 S.Ct. at 2912.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dixon
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In Harris, however, we held that “[w]hen, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one.” We justified that conclusion in the circumstances of the case by quoting Nielsen’s explanation of the Blockburger test’s insufficiency for determining when a successive prosecution was barred. “‘[A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it . . . cannot be a seco…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dixon
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
In Harris, however, we held that "[w]hen, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one." We justified that conclusion in the circumstances of the case by quoting Nielsen `s explanation of the Blockburger test's insufficiency for determining when a successive prosecution was barred. "`[A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it . . . cannot be a second time tri…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dixon
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
In Harris, however, we held that “[w]hen, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one.” We justified that conclusion in the circumstances of the case by quoting Nielsen’s explanation of the Blockburger test’s insufficiency for determining when a successive prosecution was barred. “‘[A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it . . . cannot be a seco…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bailin
Brown holds that a defendant cannot be prosecuted for an offense after he has been convicted for a lesser included offense, 432 U.S. at 166-68 , 97 S.Ct. at 2226-27, and, conversely, Harris holds that a defendant cannot be prosecuted for an offense after he has been convicted for a greater inclusive offense. 433 U.S. at 682 , 97 S.Ct. at 2912.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Bailin
Brown holds that a defendant cannot be prosecuted for an offense after he has been convicted for a lesser included offense, 432 U.S. at 166-68 , 97 S.Ct. at 2226-27, and, conversely, Harris holds that a defendant cannot be prosecuted for an offense after he has been convicted for a greater inclusive offense. 433 U.S. at 682 , 97 S.Ct. at 2912.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Whittlesey v. State
(8×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Robbery is a lesser included offense of such murder, Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2912, 2913 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054, 1056 (1977); see State v. Frye, 283 Md. 709, 715 , 393 A.2d 1372, 1375 (1978); Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260, 268 , 373 A.2d 262, 266 (1977); see also Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 169 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2227 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187, 196 (1977), and, hence, for double jeopardy purposes, is deemed the same offense. 5 Brown, 432 U.S. at 168 , 97 S.Ct. at 2227 , 53 L.Ed.2d at 196 ; Frye, 283 Md. at 715 , 393 A.2d at 1375 ; Newton, 280 Md. at 268 , 262 A.2d at 266.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Powell
Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2912 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 *470 (1977); State ex rel.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Marshall
See Grady, 110 S.Ct. at 2087 (“We hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution if, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, the government will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.”); Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 420-21 , 100 S.Ct. 2260, 2267 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980) (“because Vitale has already been convicted for conduct that is a necessary element of the more serious crime for which he has been charged, his claim of double jeopardy would be substantial”) (emphasis a…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. McCovey
(2×)
App. 1988) (first degree felony murder, life imprisonment); Williams, 305 S.E.2d at 267-68 (first degree felony murder, life imprisonment). [28] See Jones v. Thomas, 491 U.S. at 384-87 , 109 S.Ct. at 2527-2533 , 105 L.Ed.2d at 333-341 (interpreting Missouri law); Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. at 686 , 100 S.Ct. at 1434-35 (interpreting District of Columbia law); Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. at 682 , 97 S.Ct. at 2912-13 (interpreting Oklahoma law). [29] 450 U.S. 333 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981). [30] Id. at 344 , 101 S.Ct. at 1145 ; see also Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Williams
The Supreme Court held the later robbery trial unconstitutional: “When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause *405 bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one.” (Ibid. 433 U.S. at p. 682 [53 L.Ed.2d at p. 1056].) Similarly, defendants rely heavily upon Brown v. Ohio, supra, 432 U.S. 161 in propounding their same-offense analysis.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Faraga v. State
Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 682-83 , 97 S.Ct. 2912, 2912-13 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054, 1056 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. State
In Harris, the defendant was convicted of felony-murder and was subsequently tried and convicted on a separate indictment for the felony during the commission of which the murder was committed. 433 U.S. at 682 , 97 S.Ct. at 2912-2913.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Gibson
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The Court held: "When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after confiction of the greater one." 433 U.S. at 682 , 97 S.Ct. at 2912 (footnote omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hughes v. State
(2×)
E.g., Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 420-21 , 100 S.Ct. 2260, 2267-68 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228, 238 (1980) (“failure to reduce speed” is lesser-included offense of manslaughter if state proves latter offense by proving former offense); Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 683 , 97 S.Ct. 2912, 2913 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054, 1056 (1977) (underlying armed robbery lesser-included offense of felony murder); Stephens v. Zant, 631 F.2d 397, 401 (5th Cir.1980), modified on unrelated grounds, 648 F.2d 446 (5th Cir.), (an underlying felony is a less-included offense of felony murder), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1035 ,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heald v. Perrin
A person convicted of armed robbery could not also be convicted of simple robbery for the same conduct because: “[A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, . . . cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 683 (1977) (quoting In re Nielsen, 131 U.S. 176, 188 (1889)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State Ex Rel. Hall v. Strickler
(Footnote and citations omitted.) Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2912, 2913 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054, 1056 (1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
People v. Wilder
(2×)
See also Waller v Florida, 397 US 387 ; 90 S Ct 1184 ; 25 L Ed 2d 435 (1970); Grafton v United States, 206 US 333, 352 ; 27 S Ct 749 ; 51 L Ed 1084 (1907)." Harris v Oklahoma , 682-683.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Perry
(2×)
The United States Supreme Court reversed, stating: When as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one. [Citations omitted.] “. . . [A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, : . . cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. ” [Citations omitted.] Harris, 433 U.S. at 682-683 , 53 L.Ed. …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Thomas A. Larkin
Relying on a state court finding that “ ‘[i]n a felony murder case, the proof of the underlying felony [here robbery with firearms] is needed to prove the intent necessary for a felony murder conviction,’ ” id., 433 U.S. at 682 , 97 S.Ct. at 2912 (per curiam), the Court held that the second prosecution violated the prohibition against double jeopardy: “When as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one.” …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. Oklahoma
Because I continue to adhere to my view, expressed in Harris v. Oklahoma, supra, at 683 (concurring opinion), that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the prosecution in one proceeding, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, of “all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction,” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring), I would grant the petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment of the Okla…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pinder v. State
The Court, in a brief per curiam opinion, held that when "conviction for a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction for the lessor crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction for the greater one." 433 U.S. at 682 , 97 S.Ct. at 2912.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Innis
(2×)
The Court, in a very brief decision, held: “When, as here, conviction of agreater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one. (citations omitted) [A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, ... cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offence.’ ” Id. at 682-83 , 97 S. Ct. at 2912-13, 53 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Waller v. United States
The Supreme Court reversed the second conviction, and observed: Where, as here, conviction for a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction for the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction for the greater one. [Id. 97 S.Ct. at 2912 (emphasis added).] Harris turned on Double Jeopardy principles; petitioner had already been put in jeopardy for the robbery he had committed, and the state could not constitutionally do so again in a subsequent proceeding.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Harris
v.
Oklahoma
v.
Oklahoma
76-5663.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 29, 1977.
Brennan, Marshall.
Cited by 610 opinions | Published
Lead Opinion
Per Curiam.
A clerk in a Tulsa, Okla., grocery store was shot and killed by a companion of petitioner in the course of a robbery of the store by the two men. Petitioner was convicted of felony-murder in Oklahoma State court. The opinion of the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in this case states that “[i]n a felony murder case, the proof of the underlying felony [here robbery with firearms] is needed to prove the intent necessary for a felony murder conviction.” 555 P. 2d 76, 80-81 (1976). Petitioner nevertheless was thereafter brought to trial and convicted on a separate information charging the robbery with firearms, after denial of his motion to dismiss on the ground that this prosecution violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because he had been already convicted of the offense in the felony-murder trial. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed.
When, as here, conviction of a greater crime, murder, cannot be had without conviction of the lesser crime, robbery with firearms, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction of the greater one.* In re [*683] Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176 (1889); cf. Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161 (1977). “[A] person [who] has been tried and convicted for a crime which has various incidents included in it, . . . cannot be a second time tried for one of those incidents without being twice put in jeopardy for the same offence.” In re Nielsen, supra, at 188. See also Waller v. Florida, 397 U. S. 387 (1970); Grafton v. United States, 206 U. S. 333, 352 (1907).
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals is
Reversed.
The State conceded in its response to the petition for certiorari that “in the Murder case, it was necessary for all the ingredients of the under[*683] lying felony of Robbery with Firearms to be proved . . . .” Brief in Opposition 4.
Concurrence
Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice Marshall joins,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion but in any event would reverse on a ground not addressed by the Court, namely, that the State did not prosecute the two informations in one proceeding. I adhere to the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the prosecution in one proceeding, except in extremely limited circumstances not present here, of “all the charges against a defendant that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction.” Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U. S. 436, 453-454 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring). See Thompson v. Oklahoma, 429 U. S. 1053 (1977) (Brennan, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), and cases collected therein.