Blockburger test in Colorado

2006This standard has been variously referred to as the "strict elements test," "the statutory elements test," and the "Blockburger test." People v. Abiodun, 111 P.3d 462 (Colo.2005); Meads v. People, 78 P.3d 290 (Colo.2003); People v. Leske, 957 P.2d 1030 (Colo.1998).

2005This standard has been referred to as the “strict elements test,” “the statutory elements test,” and the “Blockburger test.” People v. Abiodun, 111 P.3d 462 (Colo.2005); Meads v. People, 78 P.3d 290 (Colo.2003); People v. Leske, 957 P.2d 1030 (Colo.1998).

2017Id. at 294-95 . ¶91 In doing so, however, we also distinguished those situations in which the legislature has actually created multiple crimes, or units of prosecution, within a single rubric or statutory section, see Boulies v. People, 770 P.2d 1274, 1280-81 (Colo. 1989); we declined to address, because we were not faced with, the question whether, despite not involving the same or included offenses under the Blockburger standard, conviction of both offenses at issue in that case would nevertheless have been precluded for involving one offense proscribing a designated kind of conduct generall

2017Id. at 294-95 . ¶91 In doing so, however, we also distinguished those situations in which the legislature has actually created multiple crimes, or units of prosecution, within a single rubric or statutory section, see Boulies v. People, 770 P.2d 1274, 1280-81 (Colo. 1989); we declined to address, because we were not faced with, the question whether, despite not involving the same or included offenses under the Blockburger standard, conviction of both offenses at issue in that case would nevertheless have been precluded for involving one offense proscribing a designated kind of conduct generall

1994See People v. Allen, 787 P.2d 174,175 (Colo.App.1989) ("Except for the rule concerning lesser included offenses," the Blockburger test is the applicable test.).

1994See People v. Allen, 787 P.2d 174,175 (Colo.App.1989) ("Except for the rule concerning lesser included offenses," the Blockburger test is the applicable test.).

2017When the matter reached the court of appeals, the division applied the Blockburger test and concluded that aggravated robbery and felony murder were not the “same offense.” Id.

2017When the matter reached the court of appeals, the division applied the Blockburger test and concluded that aggravated robbery and felony murder were not the “same offense.” Id.

2004People v. Garcia, 940 P.2d 357, 360 (Colo.1997).

1998See, e.g., People v. Garcia, 940 P.2d 357 , 361 n. 3 (Colo.1997); Armintrout, 864 P.2d at 579 ; People v. Raymer; 662 P.2d 1066, 1069 (Colo.1983); People v. Bartowsheski, 661 P.2d 235, 245 (Colo.1983). 8 Under this “strict elements test,” also known as the “statutory elements test” or the “Blockburger test,” if proof of the facts establishing the statutory elements of the greater offense necessarily establishes all of the elements of the lesser offense, the lesser offense is included for the purposes of section 18-l-408(5)(a).

1998See, e.g., People v. Garcia, 940 P.2d 357 , 361 n. 3 (Colo.1997); Armintrout, 864 P.2d at 579 ; People v. Raymer; 662 P.2d 1066, 1069 (Colo.1983); People v. Bartowsheski, 661 P.2d 235, 245 (Colo.1983). 8 Under this “strict elements test,” also known as the “statutory elements test” or the “Blockburger test,” if proof of the facts establishing the statutory elements of the greater offense necessarily establishes all of the elements of the lesser offense, the lesser offense is included for the purposes of section 18-l-408(5)(a).

1991See People v. Nhan Dao Van, 681 P.2d 932 (Colo.1984). [7] In People v. Lowe, 660 P.2d 1261, 1266 (Colo. 1983), we declined to apply the Blockburger test employed in Bridges in analyzing alternative methods for committing the same offense, such as felony murder. [8] In 1987, section 18-3-302(1) was amended to remove "forcibly or otherwise" in response to the holding in People v. Powell, 716 P.2d 1096, 1101 (Colo.1986), that those words implied that "knowingly" was not a separate element of the offense. [9] We are not unmindful that People v. O'Neill held that a defendant could not be convicted

2006This statute is considered to be Colorado's version of the so-called Blockburger test, which provides, "tlhe 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." Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); People v. Abiodun, supra, 111 P.3d at 465 .

2006This statute is considered to be Colorado's version of the so-called Blockburger test, which provides, "tlhe 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." Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); People v. Abiodun, supra, 111 P.3d at 465 .

2017Not only did the Court not draw any connection between Rule 31(c) and the Blockburger test, sometimes referred to as the “same-elements test,” see United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993), other than by describing it as an “elements approach” or “elements test,” but more importantly, it clearly used the term “subset” in 6 reference to the offense as “charged in the indictment,” Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 719 , rather than as more broadly defined by statute. ¶95 In the sentence immediately following its use of the term “subset,” the Court explains that “[w]here the lesser offense requires an

2017Not only did the Court not draw any connection between Rule 31(c) and the Blockburger test, sometimes referred to as the “same-elements test,” see United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993), other than by describing it as an “elements approach” or “elements test,” but more importantly, it clearly used the term “subset” in 6 reference to the offense as “charged in the indictment,” Schmuck, 489 U.S. at 719 , rather than as more broadly defined by statute. ¶95 In the sentence immediately following its use of the term “subset,” the Court explains that “[w]here the lesser offense requires an

2014See Woellhaf, 105 P.3d at 214 .

2014See Woellhaf, 105 P.3d at 214 .

2012See id.; People v. Leske, 957 P.2d 1030, 1036 (Colo.1998); People v. Carey, 198 P.3d 1223, 1226 (Colo.App.2008); see also § 18 — 1— 408(5)(a); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).

2011See, eg., Henderson, 810 P.2d at 1061 (quoting Boulies, T77O P.2d at 1278-82).

2011See, eg., Henderson, 810 P.2d at 1061 (quoting Boulies, T77O P.2d at 1278-82).

2010See Bass, 155 P.3d at 558 .

2010See Bass, 155 P.3d at 558 .

2006However, the Blockburger rule is applied "as a rule of statutory construction to help determine legislative intent" and "is not controlling when the legislative intent is clear from the face of the statute or the legislative history." Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 778-79 , 105 S.Ct. 2407, 2411 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985); See Umited States v. Crosby, supra, 20 F.3d at 484 n. 9; United States v. Grayson, supra, 795 F.2d at 282; see also Carroll v. State, supra, 459 So.2d at 369 ("even if the crimes are the same under Blockburger, if it is evident that the legislature intended to authorize

2006However, the Blockburger rule is applied "as a rule of statutory construction to help determine legislative intent" and "is not controlling when the legislative intent is clear from the face of the statute or the legislative history." Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 778-79 , 105 S.Ct. 2407, 2411 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985); See Umited States v. Crosby, supra, 20 F.3d at 484 n. 9; United States v. Grayson, supra, 795 F.2d at 282; see also Carroll v. State, supra, 459 So.2d at 369 ("even if the crimes are the same under Blockburger, if it is evident that the legislature intended to authorize

2006However, the Blockburger rule is applied "as a rule of statutory construction to help determine legislative intent" and "is not controlling when the legislative intent is clear from the face of the statute or the legislative history." Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 778-79 , 105 S.Ct. 2407, 2411 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985); See Umited States v. Crosby, supra, 20 F.3d at 484 n. 9; United States v. Grayson, supra, 795 F.2d at 282; see also Carroll v. State, supra, 459 So.2d at 369 ("even if the crimes are the same under Blockburger, if it is evident that the legislature intended to authorize

2006However, the Blockburger rule is applied "as a rule of statutory construction to help determine legislative intent" and "is not controlling when the legislative intent is clear from the face of the statute or the legislative history." Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 778-79 , 105 S.Ct. 2407, 2411 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985); See Umited States v. Crosby, supra, 20 F.3d at 484 n. 9; United States v. Grayson, supra, 795 F.2d at 282; see also Carroll v. State, supra, 459 So.2d at 369 ("even if the crimes are the same under Blockburger, if it is evident that the legislature intended to authorize

2006However, the Blockburger rule is applied "as a rule of statutory construction to help determine legislative intent" and "is not controlling when the legislative intent is clear from the face of the statute or the legislative history." Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 778-79 , 105 S.Ct. 2407, 2411 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985); See Umited States v. Crosby, supra, 20 F.3d at 484 n. 9; United States v. Grayson, supra, 795 F.2d at 282; see also Carroll v. State, supra, 459 So.2d at 369 ("even if the crimes are the same under Blockburger, if it is evident that the legislature intended to authorize

2006However, the Blockburger rule is applied "as a rule of statutory construction to help determine legislative intent" and "is not controlling when the legislative intent is clear from the face of the statute or the legislative history." Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 778-79 , 105 S.Ct. 2407, 2411 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985); See Umited States v. Crosby, supra, 20 F.3d at 484 n. 9; United States v. Grayson, supra, 795 F.2d at 282; see also Carroll v. State, supra, 459 So.2d at 369 ("even if the crimes are the same under Blockburger, if it is evident that the legislature intended to authorize

2005See id. (applying the Blockburger test).

2005See id. (applying the Blockburger test).

1998See, e.g., People v. Garcia, 940 P.2d 357 , 361 n. 3 (Colo.1997); Armintrout, 864 P.2d at 579 ; People v. Raymer; 662 P.2d 1066, 1069 (Colo.1983); People v. Bartowsheski, 661 P.2d 235, 245 (Colo.1983). 8 Under this “strict elements test,” also known as the “statutory elements test” or the “Blockburger test,” if proof of the facts establishing the statutory elements of the greater offense necessarily establishes all of the elements of the lesser offense, the lesser offense is included for the purposes of section 18-l-408(5)(a).

1998See, e.g., Armintrout, 864 P.2d at 579 ; Bartowsheski, 661 P.2d at 245 .

1998See, e.g., People v. Garcia, 940 P.2d 357 , 361 n. 3 (Colo.1997); Armintrout, 864 P.2d at 579 ; People v. Raymer; 662 P.2d 1066, 1069 (Colo.1983); People v. Bartowsheski, 661 P.2d 235, 245 (Colo.1983). 8 Under this “strict elements test,” also known as the “statutory elements test” or the “Blockburger test,” if proof of the facts establishing the statutory elements of the greater offense necessarily establishes all of the elements of the lesser offense, the lesser offense is included for the purposes of section 18-l-408(5)(a).

1994See United States v. Adams, 1 F.3d 1566, 1574 (11th Cir.1993) (holding that "the Blockburger test is to be applied to the statutory elements underlying each indictment, or count, not to the averments that go beyond the statutory elements”).

1994See United States v. Adams, 1 F.3d 1566, 1574 (11th Cir.1993) (holding that "the Blockburger test is to be applied to the statutory elements underlying each indictment, or count, not to the averments that go beyond the statutory elements”).

1991See People v. Nhan Dao Van, 681 P.2d 932 (Colo.1984). [7] In People v. Lowe, 660 P.2d 1261, 1266 (Colo. 1983), we declined to apply the Blockburger test employed in Bridges in analyzing alternative methods for committing the same offense, such as felony murder. [8] In 1987, section 18-3-302(1) was amended to remove "forcibly or otherwise" in response to the holding in People v. Powell, 716 P.2d 1096, 1101 (Colo.1986), that those words implied that "knowingly" was not a separate element of the offense. [9] We are not unmindful that People v. O'Neill held that a defendant could not be convicted

1991See People v. Nhan Dao Van, 681 P.2d 932 (Colo.1984). [7] In People v. Lowe, 660 P.2d 1261, 1266 (Colo. 1983), we declined to apply the Blockburger test employed in Bridges in analyzing alternative methods for committing the same offense, such as felony murder. [8] In 1987, section 18-3-302(1) was amended to remove "forcibly or otherwise" in response to the holding in People v. Powell, 716 P.2d 1096, 1101 (Colo.1986), that those words implied that "knowingly" was not a separate element of the offense. [9] We are not unmindful that People v. O'Neill held that a defendant could not be convicted