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.
30 Wyoming opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wyoming 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. Keffergreen2 sentences2020See Nickels, 2015 WY 85, ¶ 13 , 351 P.3d at 291 (citing State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1133-34 (Wyo. 1993) (“[T]he statutory elements or ‘Blockburger test’ should be used to determine whether a statute sets out a lesser included offense.”) (footnote omitted)). “[A] crime is a lesser included offense ‘if its elements are a subset’ of the elements of the greater offense.” Cecil v. State, 2015 WY 158, ¶ 17 , 364 P.3d 1086, 1091 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Bowlsby v. State, 2013 WY 72, ¶ 9 , 302 P.3d 913, 916 (Wyo. 2013)). 2010However, the focus of the Blockburger test is not, as Granzer would have it, on the similarity of the evidence relied on to prove the elements of the offenses but on the elements themselves. 2 Keffer, 860 P.2d at 1130 ; Nowack v. State, 774 P.2d 561, 568 (Wyo.1989). | 4 | 8 |
Cook v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Granzer v. State, 2010 WY 130, ¶ 16 , 239 P.3d 640, 646 (Wyo.2010) (The focus of the Blockburger test is not on the similarity of the evidence relied on to prove the elements of the offenses but on the elements themselves.); Cook v. State, 841 P.2d 1345, 1347 (Wyo.1992) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1081 (6th ed. 1990)) ("As used in the Double Jeopardy Clause, 'same offense means 'the same crime, not the same transaction, acts, cireumstances, or situation.' "). 2013See Granzer v. State, 2010 WY 130, ¶ 16 , 239 P.3d 640, 646 (Wyo.2010) (The focus of the Blockburger test is not on the similarity of the evidence relied on to prove the elements of the offenses but on the elements themselves.); Cook v. State, 841 P.2d 1345, 1347 (Wyo.1992) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1081 (6th ed. 1990)) ("As used in the Double Jeopardy Clause, 'same offense means 'the same crime, not the same transaction, acts, cireumstances, or situation.' "). | 3 | 3 |
Whalen v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1993When a federal statute is involved, the three-step process begins with the initial requirement of an analysis of legislative intent to create separate offenses with separate penalty provisions; if that intent is ambiguous, then the court proceeds to apply the Blockburger test as a rule of statutory construction “to determine whether Congress has in a given situation provided that two statutory offenses may be punished cumulatively.” Whalen, ■ 445 U.S. at 691 , 100 S.Ct. at 1437 . 1993When a federal statute is involved, the three-step process begins with the initial requirement of an analysis of legislative intent to create separate offenses with separate penalty provisions; if that intent is ambiguous, then the court proceeds to apply the Blockburger test as a rule of statutory construction “to determine whether Congress has in a given situation provided that two statutory offenses may be punished cumulatively.” Whalen, ■ 445 U.S. at 691 , 100 S.Ct. at 1437 . | 2 | 8 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences1989Although the preceding is dispositive as to appellant's double jeopardy claim, we also note that the same result is achieved, albeit much more simply, when we apply the "different evidence" test, a derivative of the Blockburger rule. [6] In State v. Carter, 714 P.2d 1217, 1220 (Wyo. 1986), we stated that, "where there is separate evidence of the two offenses, the offenses cannot be said to have merged." In the instant case, the evidence supporting the aggravating burglary was the beating of Ms. Gunderman with the telephone the infliction of bodily injury. 1989Although the preceding is dispositive as to appellant’s double jeopardy claim, we also note that the same result is achieved, albeit much more simply, when we apply the “different evidence” test, a derivative of the Blockburger rule. 6 In State v. Carter, 714 P.2d 1217, 1220 (Wyo.1986), we stated that, “where there is separate evidence of the two offenses, the offenses cannot be said to have merged.” In the instant case, the evidence supporting the aggravating burglary was the beating of Ms. Gunderman with the telephone — the infliction of bodily injury. | 2 | 5 |
Garrett v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1987I agree with the current decision of Garrett v. United States, supra, where again Justice Rehnquist said: "* * * We have recently indicated that the Blockburger rule is not controlling when the legislative intent is clear from the face of the statute or the legislative history." 471 U.S. at 779 , 105 S.Ct. at 2412. 1987I agree with the current decision of Garrett v. United States, supra, where again Justice Rehnquist said: "* * * We have recently indicated that the Blockburger rule is not controlling when the legislative intent is clear from the face of the statute or the legislative history." 471 U.S. at 779 , 105 S.Ct. at 2412. | 2 | 4 |
Daniel Ray Bowlsby v. The State of Wyominggreen2 sentences2020See Nickels, 2015 WY 85, ¶ 13 , 351 P.3d at 291 (citing State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1133-34 (Wyo. 1993) (“[T]he statutory elements or ‘Blockburger test’ should be used to determine whether a statute sets out a lesser included offense.”) (footnote omitted)). “[A] crime is a lesser included offense ‘if its elements are a subset’ of the elements of the greater offense.” Cecil v. State, 2015 WY 158, ¶ 17 , 364 P.3d 1086, 1091 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Bowlsby v. State, 2013 WY 72, ¶ 9 , 302 P.3d 913, 916 (Wyo. 2013)). 2020See Nickels, 2015 WY 85, ¶ 13 , 351 P.3d at 291 (citing State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1133-34 (Wyo. 1993) (“[T]he statutory elements or ‘Blockburger test’ should be used to determine whether a statute sets out a lesser included offense.”) (footnote omitted)). “[A] crime is a lesser included offense ‘if its elements are a subset’ of the elements of the greater offense.” Cecil v. State, 2015 WY 158, ¶ 17 , 364 P.3d 1086, 1091 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Bowlsby v. State, 2013 WY 72, ¶ 9 , 302 P.3d 913, 916 (Wyo. 2013)). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Weathers, Marc K.green2 sentences2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what 2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what | 2 | 2 |
Albernaz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1993There is a difference in the application of the Blockburger test by the Supreme Court, however, based upon its role in determining congressional intent, Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), and the constitutional test of double jeopardy. 1993There is a difference in the application of the Blockburger test by the Supreme Court, however, based upon its role in determining congressional intent, Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), and the constitutional test of double jeopardy. | 1 | 7 |
Birr v. Stategreen2 sentences1990Had the court pursued the problem under the same analysis articulated in Birr , the result would have been the same. [9] In Birr v. State, 744 P.2d 1117 (Wyo. 1987), we pointed out that application of the Blockburger test is not a reliable indication of legislative intent if the statute provides for violation in alternative ways. 1990Had the court pursued the problem under the same analysis articulated in Birr , the result would have been the same. [9] In Birr v. State, 744 P.2d 1117 (Wyo. 1987), we pointed out that application of the Blockburger test is not a reliable indication of legislative intent if the statute provides for violation in alternative ways. | 1 | 4 |
Lauthern v. Stategreen2 sentences2012Lauthern v. State, 769 P.2d 350 [(Wyo.1989)]; State v. Carter, 714 P.2d 1217 [(Wyo.1986)]. 2012Lauthern v. State, 769 P.2d 350 [ (Wyo.1989) ]; State v. Carter, 714 P.2d 1217 [(Wyo.1986)]. | 1 | 3 |
Granzer v. Stategreen2 sentences2017“Under the Blockburger test, an offense is a lesser-included offense if its elements are a subset of the elements of the greater offense.” Id. [¶10] Applying the Blockburger test, we have previously recognized that the crime of simple battery is a lesser included offense of the crime of strangulation of a household member: The parties seem to agree that the elements of battery in [Wyo. 2017“Under the Blockburger test, an offense is a lesser-included offense if its elements are a subset of the elements of the greater offense.” Id. [¶10] Applying the Blockburger test, we have previously recognized that the crime of simple battery is a lesser included offense of the crime of strangulation of a household member: The parties seem to agree that the elements of battery in [Wyo. | 1 | 2 |
Tuggle v. Stategreen2 sentences2010In these situations, we have held that "statutory construction and legislative intent will control the determination whether, when there are multiple victims from a single act or course of conduct, there is only one crime or as many crimes as there are victims." Id. at 864 ; Tuggle v. State, 733 P.2d 610, 612 (Wyo.1987); Vigil, 563 P.2d at 1352-53 ; see also United States v. Ansaldi, 372 F.3d 118 , 125 n. 3 (2d Cir.2004) ("Ordinarily, courts apply the so-called Blockburger test' to determine whether or not two charged offenses constitute different crimes. 2010In these situations, we have held that "statutory construction and legislative intent will control the determination whether, when there are multiple victims from a single act or course of conduct, there is only one crime or as many crimes as there are victims." Id. at 864 ; Tuggle v. State, 733 P.2d 610, 612 (Wyo.1987); Vigil, 563 P.2d at 1352-53 ; see also United States v. Ansaldi, 372 F.3d 118 , 125 n. 3 (2d Cir.2004) ("Ordinarily, courts apply the so-called `Blockburger test' to determine whether or not two charged offenses constitute different crimes. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Felixgreen2 sentences1993Felix, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1377 . 1993Felix, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1377 . | 1 | 2 |
Illinois v. Vitalegreen2 sentences1989It said [ 447 U.S. at 419 , 100 S.Ct. at 2266 ]: The point is that if manslaughter by automobile does not always entail proof of a failure to slow, then the two offenses are not the “same” under the Blockburger test. 1989It said [ 447 U.S. at 419 , 100 S.Ct. at 2266 ]: The point is that if manslaughter by automobile does not always entail proof of a failure to slow, then the two offenses are not the “same” under the Blockburger test. | 1 | 2 |
Kiley J. Cecil v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Nickels, 2015 WY 85, ¶ 13 , 351 P.3d at 291 (citing State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1133-34 (Wyo. 1993) (“[T]he statutory elements or ‘Blockburger test’ should be used to determine whether a statute sets out a lesser included offense.”) (footnote omitted)). “[A] crime is a lesser included offense ‘if its elements are a subset’ of the elements of the greater offense.” Cecil v. State, 2015 WY 158, ¶ 17 , 364 P.3d 1086, 1091 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Bowlsby v. State, 2013 WY 72, ¶ 9 , 302 P.3d 913, 916 (Wyo. 2013)). 2020See Nickels, 2015 WY 85, ¶ 13 , 351 P.3d at 291 (citing State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1133-34 (Wyo. 1993) (“[T]he statutory elements or ‘Blockburger test’ should be used to determine whether a statute sets out a lesser included offense.”) (footnote omitted)). “[A] crime is a lesser included offense ‘if its elements are a subset’ of the elements of the greater offense.” Cecil v. State, 2015 WY 158, ¶ 17 , 364 P.3d 1086, 1091 (Wyo. 2015) (quoting Bowlsby v. State, 2013 WY 72, ¶ 9 , 302 P.3d 913, 916 (Wyo. 2013)). | 1 | 1 |
| Timothy S. Nickels v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Duffy v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pope v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Silva v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ivan Lee Sweets, Sr. v. The State of Wyominggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Iannelli v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nowack v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Scott Ansaldi, Rodney Dean Gatesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Edwards v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 474115green | 1 | 1 |
| Carawan v. Statered | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Dominic Phillip Brooklier and Samuel Orlando Sciortinogreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 397156green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Howard Eric Gensergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Howard v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Goodman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wyoming. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences2015The Blockburger test is named after the seminal case of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). 2015The Blockburger test is named after the seminal case of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). | 13 | 1987–2023 |
Brown v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1992The confusion regarding the proper application of the Blockburger test comes from its use both as a device for determining legislative intent, Whalen, 445 U.S. at 693-94 , 100 S.Ct. at 1439 , and as a test of double jeopardy protections, Brown, 432 U.S. at 166 , 97 S.Ct. at 2225 . 1992The confusion regarding the proper application of the Blockburger test comes from its use both as a device for determining legislative intent, Whalen, 445 U.S. at 693-94 , 100 S.Ct. at 1439 , and as a test of double jeopardy protections, Brown, 432 U.S. at 166 , 97 S.Ct. at 2225 . | 5 | 1987–2002 |
Missouri v. Hunter
green
2 sentences1993Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 , 103 S.Ct. 673 ; Brown, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 . 1993Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 , 103 S.Ct. 673 ; Brown, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 . | 5 | 1987–1993 |
Razzaq v. Old Dominion University
green
2 sentences2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what 2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Mancillas v. United States
green
2 sentences2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what 2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Earp v. California
green
2 sentences2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what 2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Wright v. United States
green
2 sentences2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what 2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Barajas-Arcilia v. United States
green
2 sentences2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what 2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Watkins v. Pennsylvania
green
2 sentences2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what 2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Armstrong v. Boulden
green
2 sentences2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what 2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Gonzales-Velasquez v. United States
green
2 sentences2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what 2013Rather than determining whether one act falls within two distinct statutes, as in Blockburger, we are asking whether two acts constitute one statutory offense.") (citation omitted), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 949 , 125 S.Ct. 364 , 160 L.Ed.2d 266 , and cert. denied, 543 U.S. 960 , 125 S.Ct. 430 , 160 L.Ed.2d 324 (2004); United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what | 2 | 2010–2013 |
Vigil v. State
green
2 sentences2010In these situations, we have held that "statutory construction and legislative intent will control the determination whether, when there are multiple victims from a single act or course of conduct, there is only one crime or as many crimes as there are victims." Id. at 864 ; Tuggle v. State, 733 P.2d 610, 612 (Wyo.1987); Vigil, 563 P.2d at 1352-53 ; see also United States v. Ansaldi, 372 F.3d 118 , 125 n. 3 (2d Cir.2004) ("Ordinarily, courts apply the so-called Blockburger test' to determine whether or not two charged offenses constitute different crimes. 2010In these situations, we have held that "statutory construction and legislative intent will control the determination whether, when there are multiple victims from a single act or course of conduct, there is only one crime or as many crimes as there are victims." Id. at 864 ; Tuggle v. State, 733 P.2d 610, 612 (Wyo.1987); Vigil, 563 P.2d at 1352-53 ; see also United States v. Ansaldi, 372 F.3d 118 , 125 n. 3 (2d Cir.2004) ("Ordinarily, courts apply the so-called `Blockburger test' to determine whether or not two charged offenses constitute different crimes. | 2 | 1987–2010 |
DeSpain v. State
green
2 sentences1995We outlined the Blockburger test in our DeSpain decision: *193 “The applicable rule is that 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.” DeSpain, 865 P.2d at 589 (quoting State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1130 (Wyo.1993)). 1995We outlined the Blockburger test in our DeSpain decision: *193 “The applicable rule is that 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.” DeSpain, 865 P.2d at 589 (quoting State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1130 (Wyo.1993)). | 2 | 1995–1998 |
Schultz v. State
green
2 sentences1989Howard, 762 P.2d at 32 ; Schultz, 751 P.2d at 370 ; Carrett, 471 U.S. at 779 , 105 S.Ct. at 2411 . [6] The "different evidence" test, also known as the "same evidence" test, was developed in cases concerning successive prosecutions. 1989Howard, 762 P.2d at 32 ; Schultz, 751 P.2d at 370 ; Carrett, 471 U.S. at 779 , 105 S.Ct. at 2411 . [6] The "different evidence" test, also known as the "same evidence" test, was developed in cases concerning successive prosecutions. | 2 | 1989–1989 |
Geiser v. State
green
2 sentences2023Id. [¶12] Mr. Veatch asks us to look at the elements of his two charges—where the events occurred on the same date, in the same county, and with the same person—and apply the same-elements test, also known as the Blockburger test. 2023Id. [¶12] Mr. Veatch asks us to look at the elements of his two charges—where the events occurred on the same date, in the same county, and with the same person—and apply the same-elements test, also known as the Blockburger test. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Amrein v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Burks v. United States green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Morey v. Commonwealth green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Baines v. Hilton green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Grady v. Corbin red | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Gore v. United States green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co. green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Ashe v. Swenson green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Tolbert green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Miller v. Department of the Treasury green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Spencer v. United States green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| De La Fuente v. United States green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Carlson v. State green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Jackson green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Walker green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| People v. Zegart green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Illinois v. Zegart green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Seats green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Local Lodge No. 875, Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States & Canada v. Donovan green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Brooklier v. United States green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Simpson v. United States green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State v. Haggard green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Tobin green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Hunter v. State green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| United States v. Leisa Beatrice Gibson green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.