Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
32 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gillgreen2 sentences2025As a rule of statutory construction, however, we note that the “Blockburger presumption must of course yield to a plainly expressed contrary view on the part of [the legislature].” Gill, 187 W. 2020Va. 136 , 416 S.E.2d 253 (1992) (setting forth Blockburger test). 14 their counterparts in the instant case. | 7 | 13 |
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020The Blockburger test provides that “[w]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 (1932). 2020The Blockburger test provides that “[w]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 (1932). | 6 | 10 |
Garrett v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996If the relevant statutes on their face indicate a clear legislative intent to allow multiple punishments, we need not engage in a Blockburger analysis because we must give effect to that legislative intent. 15 See Garrett, 471 U.S. at 779 , 105 S.Ct. at 2411 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 771-72 . 1996If the relevant statutes on their face indicate a clear legislative intent to allow multiple punishments, we need not engage in a Blockburger analysis because we must give effect to that legislative intent. 15 See Garrett, 471 U.S. at 779 , 105 S.Ct. at 2411 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 771-72 . | 4 | 5 |
State v. Zaccagninigreen2 sentences2022Va. 491 , 308 S.E.2d 131 (1983) (adopting Blockburger test which is discussed infra in greater detail). 2018“Once the determination is made that statutory offenses are separate under the Blockburger test by virtue of the fact that each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, then multiple punishments are appropriate.” State v. Zaccagnini, 172 W.Va. 491, 502 , 308 S.E.2d 131, 142 (1983). | 3 | 13 |
Missouri v. Huntergreen2 sentences1993See Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 499 , 104 S.Ct. 2536, 2541 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425, 433 (1984) (holding that the legislature is vested with the substantive power to prescribe crimes and establish punishment and, therefore, “the question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are 'multiple' is essentially one of legislative intent[.]”); Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 543-44 (1983) (reasoning the Blockburger rule is one of statutory construction and “is not a constitutional rule requiring courts to negate clearly expressed legislative inten 1993See Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 499 , 104 S.Ct. 2536, 2541 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425, 433 (1984) (holding that the legislature is vested with the substantive power to prescribe crimes and establish punishment and, therefore, “the question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are 'multiple' is essentially one of legislative intent[.]”); Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 543-44 (1983) (reasoning the Blockburger rule is one of statutory construction and “is not a constitutional rule requiring courts to negate clearly expressed legislative inten | 3 | 5 |
Whalen v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016This test; the Blockburger test, is “traditionally regarded as ‘a rule of statutory construction ... [based on] ... [t]he assumption underlying the rule ... that [the Legislature] ordinarily does not intend to punish the same offense under two different statutes.’ ” Gill, 187 W.Va. at 142 , 416 S.E.2d at 259 (quoting Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 691-92 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980)); accord Sears, 196 W.Va. at 82, 468 S.E.2d at 335 . 2016This test; the Blockburger test, is “traditionally regarded as ‘a rule of statutory construction ... [based on] ... [t]he assumption underlying the rule ... that [the Legislature] ordinarily does not intend to punish the same offense under two different statutes.’ ” Gill, 187 W.Va. at 142 , 416 S.E.2d at 259 (quoting Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 691-92 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980)); accord Sears, 196 W.Va. at 82, 468 S.E.2d at 335 . | 3 | 5 |
Albernaz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1993See Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 499 , 104 S.Ct. 2536, 2541 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425, 433 (1984) (holding that the legislature is vested with the substantive power to prescribe crimes and establish punishment and, therefore, “the question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are 'multiple' is essentially one of legislative intent[.]”); Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 543-44 (1983) (reasoning the Blockburger rule is one of statutory construction and “is not a constitutional rule requiring courts to negate clearly expressed legislative inten 1993See Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 499 , 104 S.Ct. 2536, 2541 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425, 433 (1984) (holding that the legislature is vested with the substantive power to prescribe crimes and establish punishment and, therefore, “the question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are 'multiple' is essentially one of legislative intent[.]”); Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 543-44 (1983) (reasoning the Blockburger rule is one of statutory construction and “is not a constitutional rule requiring courts to negate clearly expressed legislative inten | 3 | 5 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2016State v. Johnson, 197 W.Va. 575, 585 , 476 S.E.2d 522, 562 (1996) (“[W]e now state that our current caselaw is that Blockburger is the only test to be used when determining whether multiple prosecu *370 tions have violated the double jeopardy constitutional provisions in the state and federal constitutions.”), superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in State v. Larry AH., 230 W.Va. 709 , 742 S.E.2d 125 (2013). 5 Thus, the circuit court’s reliance on Watson to conclude that Gregg Smith’s single shotgun blast into Thomas Smith’s leg could constitute only one crime was in error. 6 As we 2016State v. Johnson, 197 W.Va. 575, 585 , 476 S.E.2d 522, 562 (1996) (“[W]e now state that our current caselaw is that Blockburger is the only test to be used when determining whether multiple prosecu *370 tions have violated the double jeopardy constitutional provisions in the state and federal constitutions.”), superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in State v. Larry AH., 230 W.Va. 709 , 742 S.E.2d 125 (2013). 5 Thus, the circuit court’s reliance on Watson to conclude that Gregg Smith’s single shotgun blast into Thomas Smith’s leg could constitute only one crime was in error. 6 As we | 2 | 2 |
State v. Searsgreen2 sentences2016This test; the Blockburger test, is “traditionally regarded as ‘a rule of statutory construction ... [based on] ... [t]he assumption underlying the rule ... that [the Legislature] ordinarily does not intend to punish the same offense under two different statutes.’ ” Gill, 187 W.Va. at 142 , 416 S.E.2d at 259 (quoting Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 691-92 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980)); accord Sears, 196 W.Va. at 82, 468 S.E.2d at 335 . 2016This test; the Blockburger test, is “traditionally regarded as ‘a rule of statutory construction ... [based on] ... [t]he assumption underlying the rule ... that [the Legislature] ordinarily does not intend to punish the same offense under two different statutes.’ ” Gill, 187 W.Va. at 142 , 416 S.E.2d at 259 (quoting Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684, 691-92 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980)); accord Sears, 196 W.Va. at 82, 468 S.E.2d at 335 . | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Albert L. Christnergreen2 sentences2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where 2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where | 2 | 2 |
State v. Adelgreen2 sentences2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where 2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where | 2 | 2 |
State v. Adelgreen2 sentences2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where 2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where | 2 | 2 |
Dwight Rashad v. Sherry Burtgreen2 sentences2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where 2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pancakegreen2 sentences1983See also State v. Proulx, 110 N.H. 187 , 263 A.2d 673 (1970) (subsequent prosecution for statutory rape after acquittal for incest arising out of the same act is not necessarily barred by double jeopardy); State v. Pancake, W.Va., 296 S.E.2d 37, 42 (1982) ("[r]ape is not a lesser-included offense of burglary" under the Blockburger test). 1983See also State v. Proulx, 110 N.H. 187 , 263 A.2d 673 (1970) (subsequent prosecution for statutory rape after acquittal for incest arising out of the same act is not necessarily barred by double jeopardy); State v. Pancake, W.Va., 296 S.E.2d 37, 42 (1982) ("[r]ape is not a lesser-included offense of burglary" under the Blockburger test). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rummergreen2 sentences2012The Rummer Court applied the Blockburger test and explained that the “test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” 189 W.Va. at 373 , 432 S.E.2d at 43 . 2012The Rummer Court applied the Blockburger test and explained that the “test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” 189 W.Va. at 373 , 432 S.E.2d at 43 . | 1 | 3 |
Brown v. Ohiogreen2 sentences1996See also syl. pt. 4, Gill, supra. In Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), the Supreme Court of the United States made clear that the Blockburger test applied to double jeopardy multiple prosecution issues. 1996See also syl. pt. 4, Gill, supra. In Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), the Supreme Court of the United States made clear that the Blockburger test applied to double jeopardy multiple prosecution issues. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2013Therefore "the same-elements test obviously provides no guidance where the issue concerns the allowable unit of prosecution under a single stat-.utoiy provision.” Green, 207 W.Va. at 536 , 534 S.E.2d at 401 . .Although our cases refer to this statute as the brandishing statute, it is clear that the statute sets out additional offenses. .The phrase "breach of the peace” has a wide and general application and meaning and comprehends disturbances of the public peace vio-lative of order and decency or decorum; it signifies the disquieting of the public tranquility by any act or conduct inciting to 2013Therefore "the same-elements test obviously provides no guidance where the issue concerns the allowable unit of prosecution under a single stat-.utoiy provision.” Green, 207 W.Va. at 536 , 534 S.E.2d at 401 . .Although our cases refer to this statute as the brandishing statute, it is clear that the statute sets out additional offenses. .The phrase "breach of the peace” has a wide and general application and meaning and comprehends disturbances of the public peace vio-lative of order and decency or decorum; it signifies the disquieting of the public tranquility by any act or conduct inciting to | 1 | 2 |
State v. Peyattgreen2 sentences2007In State v. Peyatt, 315 S.E.2d 574 , 173 W.Va. 317 (1983), we analyzed the first degree sexual assault and incest statutes in effect at that time employing our adopted Blockburger analysis. 2007In State v. Peyatt, 315 S.E.2d 574 , 173 W.Va. 317 (1983), we analyzed the first degree sexual assault and incest statutes in effect at that time employing our adopted Blockburger analysis. | 1 | 2 |
Grady v. Corbinred2 sentences1996After first applying the Blockburger test, it determined whether the “same-conduct” test was satisfied. 6 Id. at 510, 110 S.Ct. at 2087 , 109 L.Ed.2d at 557 . 1996After first applying the Blockburger test, it determined whether the “same-conduct” test was satisfied. 6 Id. at 510, 110 S.Ct. at 2087 , 109 L.Ed.2d at 557 . | 1 | 2 |
Ohio v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1993See Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 499 , 104 S.Ct. 2536, 2541 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425, 433 (1984) (holding that the legislature is vested with the substantive power to prescribe crimes and establish punishment and, therefore, “the question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are 'multiple' is essentially one of legislative intent[.]”); Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 543-44 (1983) (reasoning the Blockburger rule is one of statutory construction and “is not a constitutional rule requiring courts to negate clearly expressed legislative inten 1993See Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493, 499 , 104 S.Ct. 2536, 2541 , 81 L.Ed.2d 425, 433 (1984) (holding that the legislature is vested with the substantive power to prescribe crimes and establish punishment and, therefore, “the question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are 'multiple' is essentially one of legislative intent[.]”); Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 543-44 (1983) (reasoning the Blockburger rule is one of statutory construction and “is not a constitutional rule requiring courts to negate clearly expressed legislative inten | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Collinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wrightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Weathers, Marc K.green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Dixongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Dowdy v. Robinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State ex rel. Dowdy v. Robinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Swafford v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Iannelli v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Green v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Wilsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hoovergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Holmesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hoovergreen | 1 | 1 |
| American Tobacco Co. v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Trailgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Proulxgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Brittmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Washingtonyellow | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Washingtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences1996As noted above, this Court essentially adopted the Blockburger test in syllabus point 8 of State v. Zaccagnini, 172 W.Va. 491 , 308 S.E.2d 131 (1983). 8 “Where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” See also syl. pts. 4 and 6, Gill, supra; syl. pt. 1, State v. Miller, 175 W.Va. 616 , 336 S.E.2d 910 (1985). *586 With the above in mind we now turn to the facts in the case before 1996As noted above, this Court essentially adopted the Blockburger test in syllabus point 8 of State v. Zaccagnini, 172 W.Va. 491 , 308 S.E.2d 131 (1983). 8 “Where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” See also syl. pts. 4 and 6, Gill, supra; syl. pt. 1, State v. Miller, 175 W.Va. 616 , 336 S.E.2d 910 (1985). *586 With the above in mind we now turn to the facts in the case before | 3 | 1988–1996 |
Patrick Mirandy, Warden v. Gregg D. Smith
green
2 sentences2023Pt. 6, in part, Mirandy v. Smith, 237 W. 2016The rule is not controlling where there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” Accord syl. pt. 6, Mirandy v. Smith, 237 W.Va. 363 , 787 S.E.2d 634 (2016). | 2 | 2016–2023 |
Burt v. Rashad
green
2 sentences2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where 2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where | 2 | 2000–2012 |
Martin v. Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where 2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where | 2 | 2000–2012 |
United States v. Terry Burton Kimbrough
green
2 sentences2012The Green Court continued: In other words, the Blockburger rule “applies to determinations of whether [a legislature] intended the same conduct to be punishable under two criminal provisions,” and is impertinent where multiple counts are charged under “the same criminal provisions.” United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723 , 729 n. 5 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1157 , 116 S.Ct. 1547 , 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996). 2012The Green Court continued: In other words, the Blockburger rule “applies to determinations of whether [a legislature] intended the same conduct to be punishable under two criminal provisions,” and is impertinent where multiple counts are charged under “the same criminal provisions.” United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723 , 729 n. 5 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1157 , 116 S.Ct. 1547 , 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996). | 2 | 2000–2012 |
United States v. James L. Keen
green
2 sentences2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where 2012See also State v. Adel, 136 Wash.2d 629, 634 , 965 P.2d 1072, 1074 (1998) (proper inquiry in a single-statute ease is “what ‘unit of prosecution’ has the Legislature intended as the punishable act under the specific criminal statute”) (citation omitted); Rashad v. Burt, 108 F.3d 677, 679-80 (6th Cir.1997) (“The Blockburger test is insufficient where ... the concern is not multiple charges under separate statutes____”), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1075 , 118 S.Ct. 850 , 139 L.Ed.2d 751 (1998); United States v. Keen, 104 F.3d 1111 , 1118 n. 12 (9th Cir.1996) (refusing to apply Blockburger test where | 2 | 2000–2012 |
Eades v. Clark Distributing Co.
green
2 sentences2012The Green Court continued: In other words, the Blockburger rule “applies to determinations of whether [a legislature] intended the same conduct to be punishable under two criminal provisions,” and is impertinent where multiple counts are charged under “the same criminal provisions.” United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723 , 729 n. 5 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1157 , 116 S.Ct. 1547 , 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996). 2012The Green Court continued: In other words, the Blockburger rule “applies to determinations of whether [a legislature] intended the same conduct to be punishable under two criminal provisions,” and is impertinent where multiple counts are charged under “the same criminal provisions.” United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723 , 729 n. 5 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1157 , 116 S.Ct. 1547 , 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996). | 2 | 2000–2012 |
Buyea v. United States
green
2 sentences2012The Green Court continued: In other words, the Blockburger rule “applies to determinations of whether [a legislature] intended the same conduct to be punishable under two criminal provisions,” and is impertinent where multiple counts are charged under “the same criminal provisions.” United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723 , 729 n. 5 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1157 , 116 S.Ct. 1547 , 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996). 2012The Green Court continued: In other words, the Blockburger rule “applies to determinations of whether [a legislature] intended the same conduct to be punishable under two criminal provisions,” and is impertinent where multiple counts are charged under “the same criminal provisions.” United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723 , 729 n. 5 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1157 , 116 S.Ct. 1547 , 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996). | 2 | 2000–2012 |
Jordan v. United States
green
2 sentences2012The Green Court continued: In other words, the Blockburger rule “applies to determinations of whether [a legislature] intended the same conduct to be punishable under two criminal provisions,” and is impertinent where multiple counts are charged under “the same criminal provisions.” United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723 , 729 n. 5 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1157 , 116 S.Ct. 1547 , 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996). 2012The Green Court continued: In other words, the Blockburger rule “applies to determinations of whether [a legislature] intended the same conduct to be punishable under two criminal provisions,” and is impertinent where multiple counts are charged under “the same criminal provisions.” United States v. Kimbrough, 69 F.3d 723 , 729 n. 5 (5th Cir.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1157 , 116 S.Ct. 1547 , 134 L.Ed.2d 650 (1996). | 2 | 2000–2012 |
State v. Reed
green
2 sentences1993As we held in Syl. pt. 4, State v. Reed, 166 W.Va. 558 , 276 S.E.2d 313 (1981): Double jeopardy prohibits multiple punishment for the same offense, therefore under our criminal sexual conduct statute, W.Va.Code, 61-8B-1, et seq. [1986], a single sexual act cannot result in multiple criminal convictions. 1993As we held in Syl. pt. 4, State v. Reed, 166 W.Va. 558 , 276 S.E.2d 313 (1981): Double jeopardy prohibits multiple punishment for the same offense, therefore under our criminal sexual conduct statute, W.Va.Code, 61-8B-1, et seq. [1986], a single sexual act cannot result in multiple criminal convictions. | 2 | 1988–1993 |
| State of West Virginia v. Larry A. H. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Hatfield green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Sanabria v. United States green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Myers green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Prince v. United States green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Raines green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Warner green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Harris v. Oklahoma green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Gilkerson v. Lilly green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Martin green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.