federal double jeopardy clause in Washington

29 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington 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.

Followed or applied (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Gockengreen wash · 1995 · cited in 10 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–2010 2 sentences 2010We have held that “Washington’s double jeopardy clause is coextensive with the federal double jeopardy clause and ‘is given the same interpretation the Supreme Court gives to the Fifth Amendment.’ ” State v. Eggleston, 164 Wn.2d 61, 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (2008) (quoting State v. Gocken, 127 Wn.2d 95, 107 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995)). 2010We have held that “Washington’s double jeopardy clause is coextensive with the federal double jeopardy clause and ‘is given the same interpretation the Supreme Court gives to the Fifth Amendment.’ ” State v. Eggleston, 164 Wn.2d 61, 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (2008) (quoting State v. Gocken, 127 Wn.2d 95, 107 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995)).	2	10
Benton v. Marylandgreen scotus · 1969 · cited in 5 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1997–2020 2 sentences 2020Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 787 , 89 S. Ct. 2056 , 23 L. 2020Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 787 , 89 S. Ct. 2056 , 23 L.	2	5
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1931 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Being bound by State v. Johnson, 5 which is directly on point, I would hold that one or more of the robbery, rape, and kidnap convictions merge with the felony murder conviction. 6 Being bound by the federal double jeopardy clause, which forbids convicting a defendant for two crimes involving the same facts and same victim if all the elements of one crime are included within the other, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L. 2004Being bound by State v. Johnson, 5 which is directly on point, I would hold that one or more of the robbery, rape, and kidnap convictions merge with the felony murder conviction. 6 Being bound by the federal double jeopardy clause, which forbids convicting a defendant for two crimes involving the same facts and same victim if all the elements of one crime are included within the other, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L.	2	2
United States v. Dixongreen scotus · 1993 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004Being bound by State v. Johnson, [5] which is directly on point, I would hold that one or more of the robbery, rape, and kidnap convictions merge with the felony murder conviction. [6] Being bound by the federal double jeopardy clause, which forbids convicting a defendant for two crimes involving the same facts and same victim if all the elements of one crime are included within the other, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ("where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied t 2004Being bound by State v. Johnson, [5] which is directly on point, I would hold that one or more of the robbery, rape, and kidnap convictions merge with the felony murder conviction. [6] Being bound by the federal double jeopardy clause, which forbids convicting a defendant for two crimes involving the same facts and same victim if all the elements of one crime are included within the other, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ("where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied t	2	2
United States v. One Single Family Residence Located at 18755 North Bay Road, Miamigreen ca11 · 1994 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (34)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Eggleston green wash · 2008 2 sentences 2010We have held that "Washington's double jeopardy clause is coextensive with the federal double jeopardy clause and `is given the same interpretation the Supreme Court gives to the Fifth Amendment.'" State v. Eggleston, 164 Wash.2d 61, 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (2008) (quoting State v. Gocken, 127 Wash.2d 95, 107 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995)). 2010We have held that “Washington’s double jeopardy clause is coextensive with the federal double jeopardy clause and ‘is given the same interpretation the Supreme Court gives to the Fifth Amendment.’ ” State v. Eggleston, 164 Wn.2d 61, 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (2008) (quoting State v. Gocken, 127 Wn.2d 95, 107 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995)).	5	2010–2017
State v. Eggleston green wash · 2008 2 sentences 2010We have held that "Washington's double jeopardy clause is coextensive with the federal double jeopardy clause and `is given the same interpretation the Supreme Court gives to the Fifth Amendment.'" State v. Eggleston, 164 Wash.2d 61, 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (2008) (quoting State v. Gocken, 127 Wash.2d 95, 107 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995)). 2010We have held that “Washington’s double jeopardy clause is coextensive with the federal double jeopardy clause and ‘is given the same interpretation the Supreme Court gives to the Fifth Amendment.’ ” State v. Eggleston, 164 Wn.2d 61, 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (2008) (quoting State v. Gocken, 127 Wn.2d 95, 107 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995)).	5	2010–2017
North Carolina v. Pearce red scotus · 1969 2 sentences 2013V. 2 This provision bars “multiple punishments for the same offense,” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S. Ct. 2072 , 23 L. 2013V. 2 This provision bars “multiple punishments for the same offense,” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S. Ct. 2072 , 23 L.	3	1994–2013
State v. Glasmann neutral wash · 2015 2 sentences 2017State v. Eggleston, 164 Wn.2d 61, 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (2008): State v. Glasmann, 183Wn.2d 117, 121, 349 P.3d 829 (2015). 2017State v. Eggleston, 164 Wn.2d 61, 70 , 187 P.3d 233 (2008); State v. Glasmann, 183 Wn.2d 117, 121 , 349 P.3d 829 (2015).	2	2017–2017
State v. Graham green wash · 2005 2 sentences 2010Consequently, both clauses have been interpreted so as to protect against the same triumvirate of constitutional evils: "being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense." State v. Linton, 156 Wash.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006) (citing State v. Graham, 153 Wash.2d 400, 404 , 103 P.3d 1238 (2005); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977)). 2010Consequently, both clauses have been interpreted so as to protect against the same triumvirate of constitutional evils: “being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense.” State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006) (citing State v. Graham, 153 Wn.2d 400, 404 , 103 P.3d 1238 (2005); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L.	2	2010–2010
State v. Linton green wash · 2006 2 sentences 2010Consequently, both clauses have been interpreted so as to protect against the same triumvirate of constitutional evils: "being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense." State v. Linton, 156 Wash.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006) (citing State v. Graham, 153 Wash.2d 400, 404 , 103 P.3d 1238 (2005); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977)). 2010Consequently, both clauses have been interpreted so as to protect against the same triumvirate of constitutional evils: “being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense.” State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006) (citing State v. Graham, 153 Wn.2d 400, 404 , 103 P.3d 1238 (2005); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L.	2	2010–2010
Brown v. Ohio green scotus · 1977 2 sentences 2010Consequently, both clauses have been interpreted so as to protect against the same triumvirate of constitutional evils: “being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense.” State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006) (citing State v. Graham, 153 Wn.2d 400, 404 , 103 P.3d 1238 (2005); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L. 2010Consequently, both clauses have been interpreted so as to protect against the same triumvirate of constitutional evils: “being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense.” State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006) (citing State v. Graham, 153 Wn.2d 400, 404 , 103 P.3d 1238 (2005); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L.	2	2010–2010
State v. Linton green wash · 2006 2 sentences 2010Consequently, both clauses have been interpreted so as to protect against the same triumvirate of constitutional evils: "being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense." State v. Linton, 156 Wash.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006) (citing State v. Graham, 153 Wash.2d 400, 404 , 103 P.3d 1238 (2005); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977)). 2010Consequently, both clauses have been interpreted so as to protect against the same triumvirate of constitutional evils: “being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense.” State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006) (citing State v. Graham, 153 Wn.2d 400, 404 , 103 P.3d 1238 (2005); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L.	2	2010–2010
State v. Graham green wash · 2005 2 sentences 2010Consequently, both clauses have been interpreted so as to protect against the same triumvirate of constitutional evils: "being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense." State v. Linton, 156 Wash.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006) (citing State v. Graham, 153 Wash.2d 400, 404 , 103 P.3d 1238 (2005); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977)). 2010Consequently, both clauses have been interpreted so as to protect against the same triumvirate of constitutional evils: “being (1) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after acquittal, (2) prosecuted a second time for the same offense after conviction, and (3) punished multiple times for the same offense.” State v. Linton, 156 Wn.2d 777, 783 , 132 P.3d 127 (2006) (citing State v. Graham, 153 Wn.2d 400, 404 , 103 P.3d 1238 (2005); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L.	2	2010–2010
State v. Corrado green washctapp · 1996 2 sentences 2008Both double jeopardy clauses “bar[ ] trial if three elements are met: (a) jeopardy previously attached, (b) jeopardy previously terminated, and (c) the defendant is again in jeopardy Tor the same offense.’ ” State v. Corrado, 81 Wn. 2008Both double jeopardy clauses "bar[ ] trial if three elements are met: (a) jeopardy previously attached, (b) jeopardy previously terminated, and (c) the defendant is again in jeopardy `for the same offense.'" State v. Corrado, 81 Wash.App. 640, 645 , 915 P.2d 1121 (1996) `(footnotes omitted). ¶ 11 The Supreme Court has held the double jeopardy clause prevents retrying a defendant on aggravating factors supporting the death penalty, when a previous jury had rejected the imposition of the death penalty.	2	2008–2008
In re the Personal Restraint of Percer green wash · 2003 2 sentences 2007Restraint of Percer, 150 Wn.2d 41, 49 , 75 P.3d 488 (2003) (citing State v. Gocken, 127 Wn.2d 95, 107 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995)). 2007Restraint of Percer, 150 Wash.2d 41, 49 , 75 P.3d 488 (2003) (citing State v. Gocken, 127 Wash.2d 95, 107 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995)).	2	2007–2007
In Re Percer neutral wash · 2003 2 sentences 2007Restraint of Percer, 150 Wn.2d 41, 49 , 75 P.3d 488 (2003) (citing State v. Gocken, 127 Wn.2d 95, 107 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995)). 2007Restraint of Percer, 150 Wash.2d 41, 49 , 75 P.3d 488 (2003) (citing State v. Gocken, 127 Wash.2d 95, 107 , 896 P.2d 1267 (1995)).	2	2007–2007
Austin v. United States green scotus · 1993 2 sentences 1997The dissent relies on our language in State v. Clark, 124 Wn.2d 90, 98 , 875 P.2d 613 (1994): "[A] forfeiture statute must be solely remedial to escape characterization as 'punishment’ under the federal double jeopardy clause.” Clark , in turn, relied on Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S. Ct. 2801 , 125 L. 1997The dissent relies on our language in State v. Clark, 124 Wn.2d 90, 98 , 875 P.2d 613 (1994): "[A] forfeiture statute must be solely remedial to escape characterization as 'punishment’ under the federal double jeopardy clause.” Clark , in turn, relied on Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S. Ct. 2801 , 125 L.	2	1997–1997
State v. Clark green wash · 1994 2 sentences 1997The dissent relies on our language in State v. Clark, 124 Wn.2d 90, 98 , 875 P.2d 613 (1994): "[A] forfeiture statute must be solely remedial to escape characterization as 'punishment’ under the federal double jeopardy clause.” Clark , in turn, relied on Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S. Ct. 2801 , 125 L. 1997The dissent relies on our language in State v. Clark, 124 Wn.2d 90, 98 , 875 P.2d 613 (1994): "[A] forfeiture statute must be solely remedial to escape characterization as 'punishment’ under the federal double jeopardy clause.” Clark , in turn, relied on Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S. Ct. 2801 , 125 L.	2	1997–1997
State v. Muhammad green wash · 2019 1 sentence 2020State v. Muhammad, 194 Wn.2d 577 , 615-16, 451 P.3d 1060 (2019).	1	2020–2020
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania green scotus · 2003 2 sentences 2013Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101, 106 , 123 S. Ct. 732 , 154 L. 2013Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101, 106 , 123 S. Ct. 732 , 154 L.	1	2013–2013
State v. Jackman green wash · 2006 1 sentence 2013State v. Jackman, 156 Wn.2d 736, 746 , 132 P.3d 136 (2006). ¶4 The federal double jeopardy clause provides, “No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ....” U.S. Const, amend.	1	2013–2013
United States v. Jorn green scotus · 1971 2 sentences 2013V. 1 Jeopardy occurs when a criminal defendant is "put to trial before the trier of the facts." United States v. Jom, 400 U.S. 470, 479 , 91 S. Ct. 547 , 27 L. 2013V. 1 Jeopardy occurs when a criminal defendant is "put to trial before the trier of the facts." United States v. Jom, 400 U.S. 470, 479 , 91 S. Ct. 547 , 27 L.	1	2013–2013
State v. Jackman green wash · 2006 1 sentence 2013State v. Jackman, 156 Wn.2d 736, 746 , 132 P.3d 136 (2006). ¶4 The federal double jeopardy clause provides, “No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb ....” U.S. Const, amend.	1	2013–2013
State v. Corrado green washctapp · 1996 1 sentence 2008Both double jeopardy clauses "bar[ ] trial if three elements are met: (a) jeopardy previously attached, (b) jeopardy previously terminated, and (c) the defendant is again in jeopardy `for the same offense.'" State v. Corrado, 81 Wash.App. 640, 645 , 915 P.2d 1121 (1996) `(footnotes omitted). ¶ 11 The Supreme Court has held the double jeopardy clause prevents retrying a defendant on aggravating factors supporting the death penalty, when a previous jury had rejected the imposition of the death penalty.	1	2008–2008
State v. Adel green wash · 1998 1 sentence 2004Being bound by State v. Johnson, [5] which is directly on point, I would hold that one or more of the robbery, rape, and kidnap convictions merge with the felony murder conviction. [6] Being bound by the federal double jeopardy clause, which forbids convicting a defendant for two crimes involving the same facts and same victim if all the elements of one crime are included within the other, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ("where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied t	1	2004–2004
State v. Read green washctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2004Being bound by State v. Johnson, [5] which is directly on point, I would hold that one or more of the robbery, rape, and kidnap convictions merge with the felony murder conviction. [6] Being bound by the federal double jeopardy clause, which forbids convicting a defendant for two crimes involving the same facts and same victim if all the elements of one crime are included within the other, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ("where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied t	1	2004–2004
State v. Read green wash · 2002 1 sentence 2004Being bound by State v. Johnson, [5] which is directly on point, I would hold that one or more of the robbery, rape, and kidnap convictions merge with the felony murder conviction. [6] Being bound by the federal double jeopardy clause, which forbids convicting a defendant for two crimes involving the same facts and same victim if all the elements of one crime are included within the other, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ("where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied t	1	2004–2004
State v. Read green wash · 2002 1 sentence 2004Being bound by State v. Johnson, [5] which is directly on point, I would hold that one or more of the robbery, rape, and kidnap convictions merge with the felony murder conviction. [6] Being bound by the federal double jeopardy clause, which forbids convicting a defendant for two crimes involving the same facts and same victim if all the elements of one crime are included within the other, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ("where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied t	1	2004–2004
State v. Adel green wash · 1998 1 sentence 2004Being bound by State v. Johnson, [5] which is directly on point, I would hold that one or more of the robbery, rape, and kidnap convictions merge with the felony murder conviction. [6] Being bound by the federal double jeopardy clause, which forbids convicting a defendant for two crimes involving the same facts and same victim if all the elements of one crime are included within the other, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ("where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied t	1	2004–2004
State v. Read green washctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2004Being bound by State v. Johnson, [5] which is directly on point, I would hold that one or more of the robbery, rape, and kidnap convictions merge with the felony murder conviction. [6] Being bound by the federal double jeopardy clause, which forbids convicting a defendant for two crimes involving the same facts and same victim if all the elements of one crime are included within the other, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ("where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied t	1	2004–2004
State v. Zimmerman green nd · 1995	1	1997–1997
State v. Young green nebctapp · 1995	1	1997–1997
State v. Strong green vt · 1992	1	1997–1997
United States v. Halper red scotus · 1989	1	1994–1994
State v. Kirk green washctapp · 1992	1	1994–1994
Garrett v. United States green scotus · 1985	1	1994–1994
State v. Ridgley green wash · 1967	1	1987–1987
State v. Schoel green wash · 1959	1	1987–1987

Statutes the citing opinions construe

WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.537 (7) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.535 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.050 (6) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.030 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9.94A.589 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.030 (5) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.401 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.505 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.08.010 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.32.010 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.36.011 (4) WA § Wash. Rev. Code § 9A.56.040 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

IN 35 (1978–2018) CA 35 (1979–2022) WA 29 (1987–2020) PA 19 (1978–2025) TX 17 (1988–2023) NM 12 (2003–2022) NJ 10 (1975–2008) MO 10 (1980–2022) MA 8 (1995–2015) AK 7 (1995–2021) MS 6 (1983–2023) OH 5 (2006–2025) IL 5 (1981–2026) MI 4 (1978–2021) NH 4 (1993–2019) OR 4 (1983–2019) HI 4 (1997–2019) GA 4 (1987–2004) FL 4 (1984–1995) IA 3 (1998–2022) TN 3 (1996–2017) WV 3 (1978–2020) NY 3 (1976–1995) AZ 2 (2003–2005) UT 2 (1987–2004) CT 2 (1995–2009) MN 2 (1987–2013) DE 2 (1982–2000)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check