Blockburger test in Delaware

2022See also Stigars v. State, 674 A.2d 477, 482-82 (Del. 1996) (declining to apply Blockburger test where commentary to the criminal code reflected the General Assembly’s intention for felony theft be a lesser-included offense of robbery). 11 11 Del.

2019C. § 206(a)(1), (b)(1). 60 Answering Br. at 17-19. 61 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). 62 Stigars v. State , 674 A.2d 477 , 482 (Del. 1996) (noting that "this Court has generally employed the Blockburger test," which "is consistent with 11 Del.

2025Mar. 4, 2024). 53 State v. Gibson, at *2. 54 D.I. 30. 55 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932) (the Blockburger test states that when a single criminal act violates two distinct statutory provisions, the determination of whether there are two offenses or only one depends on whether each statute requires proof of a fact that the other does not); See also, McGuiness v. State, 312 A.3d 1156 (Del. 2024) (citing White v. State, 243 A.3d 381 , 399 (Del. 2020)). 11 perceive, or (3) intentionally causing death while under extreme emotional disturbance, which does not qualify as murder

2025Mar. 4, 2024). 53 State v. Gibson, at *2. 54 D.I. 30. 55 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932) (the Blockburger test states that when a single criminal act violates two distinct statutory provisions, the determination of whether there are two offenses or only one depends on whether each statute requires proof of a fact that the other does not); See also, McGuiness v. State, 312 A.3d 1156 (Del. 2024) (citing White v. State, 243 A.3d 381 , 399 (Del. 2020)). 11 perceive, or (3) intentionally causing death while under extreme emotional disturbance, which does not qualify as murder

2024See Davis v. State, 400 A.2d 292 (Del. 1979), overruled by LeCompte v. State, 516 A.2d 898 (Del. 1986); Hunter v. State, 420 A.2d 119 (Del. 1980), cert. granted, judgment vacated, Delaware v, Hunter, 450 U.S. 991 (1981); Bailey v. State, 419 A.2d 925 (Del. 1980) (relying on Davis v. State, 400 A.2d 292 (Del. 1979) and Hunter v. State, 420 A.2d 119 (Del. 1980) to reverse defendant’s conviction); Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362 (Del., 1979) (relying on Davis v. State, 400 A.2d 292 (Del. 1979) to reverse defendant’s conviction). 7 intended, as . . . it did in § 613(1) [first degree assault] and § 1447

2024See Davis v. State, 400 A.2d 292 (Del. 1979), overruled by LeCompte v. State, 516 A.2d 898 (Del. 1986); Hunter v. State, 420 A.2d 119 (Del. 1980), cert. granted, judgment vacated, Delaware v, Hunter, 450 U.S. 991 (1981); Bailey v. State, 419 A.2d 925 (Del. 1980) (relying on Davis v. State, 400 A.2d 292 (Del. 1979) and Hunter v. State, 420 A.2d 119 (Del. 1980) to reverse defendant’s conviction); Bey v. State, 402 A.2d 362 (Del., 1979) (relying on Davis v. State, 400 A.2d 292 (Del. 1979) to reverse defendant’s conviction). 7 intended, as . . . it did in § 613(1) [first degree assault] and § 1447

2019C. § 206") 63 Blockburger , 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 . 64 Stigars , 674 A.2d at 482 ; see also Poteat v. State , 840 A.2d 599 , 602-06 (Del. 2003) (citing Stigars for that same proposition and reasoning that the Commentary to the Criminal Code was a better indicator of legislative intent than the Blockburger test and the text of § 206 ). 65 Stigars , 674 A.2d at 482 . 66 State v. Cook , 600 A.2d 352 , 355 n.6 (Del. 1991) ("We find [the defendant's] reliance upon 11 Del.

2019C. § 206") 63 Blockburger , 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 . 64 Stigars , 674 A.2d at 482 ; see also Poteat v. State , 840 A.2d 599 , 602-06 (Del. 2003) (citing Stigars for that same proposition and reasoning that the Commentary to the Criminal Code was a better indicator of legislative intent than the Blockburger test and the text of § 206 ). 65 Stigars , 674 A.2d at 482 . 66 State v. Cook , 600 A.2d 352 , 355 n.6 (Del. 1991) ("We find [the defendant's] reliance upon 11 Del.

1996Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Chao v. State, Del.Supr., 604 A.2d 1351, 1361 (1992); Hackett v. State, Del.Supr., 569 A.2d 79, 80 (1989); LeCompte, 516 A.2d at 900 .

1996Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Chao v. State, Del.Supr., 604 A.2d 1351, 1361 (1992); Hackett v. State, Del.Supr., 569 A.2d 79, 80 (1989); LeCompte, 516 A.2d at 900 .

1983“Where the General Assembly intended ... to impose multiple punishments for two offenses not satisfying the Blockburger test, imposition of two consecutive sentences by a court as a result of a single criminal trial does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Hunter, 430 A.2d at 481 .

1983“Where the General Assembly intended ... to impose multiple punishments for two offenses not satisfying the Blockburger test, imposition of two consecutive sentences by a court as a result of a single criminal trial does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Hunter, 430 A.2d at 481 .

1981And then, making the analysis and following what we thought were the teachings of Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6 , 98 S.Ct. 909 , 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137 , 97 S.Ct. 2207 , 53 L.Ed.2d 168 (1977); Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); and Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), we concluded in Hunter that the Blockburger tes

1981And then, making the analysis and following what we thought were the teachings of Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6 , 98 S.Ct. 909 , 55 L.Ed.2d 70 (1978); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137 , 97 S.Ct. 2207 , 53 L.Ed.2d 168 (1977); Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969); and Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), we concluded in Hunter that the Blockburger tes

2020I, §8; see also Tarr v. State, 486 A.2d 672, 674 (Del. 1984). 66 Tarr, 486 A.2d at 674 . 18 statute.67 At issue here is the second protection because the charges that Jones is challenging are under two separate statutes. (34) In Blockburger v. United States, the United States Supreme Court provided the rule that “two distinct statutory provisions that condemn the same conduct constitute separate offenses when ‘each provision requires proof of an additional fact, which the other does not.’”68 The Blockburger test was codified in 11 Del.

2020I, §8; see also Tarr v. State, 486 A.2d 672, 674 (Del. 1984). 66 Tarr, 486 A.2d at 674 . 18 statute.67 At issue here is the second protection because the charges that Jones is challenging are under two separate statutes. (34) In Blockburger v. United States, the United States Supreme Court provided the rule that “two distinct statutory provisions that condemn the same conduct constitute separate offenses when ‘each provision requires proof of an additional fact, which the other does not.’”68 The Blockburger test was codified in 11 Del.

2019C. § 206") 63 Blockburger , 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 . 64 Stigars , 674 A.2d at 482 ; see also Poteat v. State , 840 A.2d 599 , 602-06 (Del. 2003) (citing Stigars for that same proposition and reasoning that the Commentary to the Criminal Code was a better indicator of legislative intent than the Blockburger test and the text of § 206 ). 65 Stigars , 674 A.2d at 482 . 66 State v. Cook , 600 A.2d 352 , 355 n.6 (Del. 1991) ("We find [the defendant's] reliance upon 11 Del.

2019C. § 206") 63 Blockburger , 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 . 64 Stigars , 674 A.2d at 482 ; see also Poteat v. State , 840 A.2d 599 , 602-06 (Del. 2003) (citing Stigars for that same proposition and reasoning that the Commentary to the Criminal Code was a better indicator of legislative intent than the Blockburger test and the text of § 206 ). 65 Stigars , 674 A.2d at 482 . 66 State v. Cook , 600 A.2d 352 , 355 n.6 (Del. 1991) ("We find [the defendant's] reliance upon 11 Del.

2015Johnson v. State, 5 A.3d 617, 620 (Del.2010) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)) ("The Blockburger rule states that two distinct statutory provisions that condemn the same conduct constitute separate offenses when ‘each provision requires proof of an additional fact, which the other does not.’ ”); see also 11 Del C. § 206 (codifying the Block-burger rule). 27 . llDeZ.C. § 206(b). 28 .

2015Johnson v. State, 5 A.3d 617, 620 (Del.2010) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)) ("The Blockburger rule states that two distinct statutory provisions that condemn the same conduct constitute separate offenses when ‘each provision requires proof of an additional fact, which the other does not.’ ”); see also 11 Del C. § 206 (codifying the Block-burger rule). 27 . llDeZ.C. § 206(b). 28 .

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no

2006Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution.") (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981)); U.S. v. Patel, 370 F.3d 108, 115 (1st Cir.2004) (holding that the threshold question before reaching a Blockburger analysis is what was Congress' intent in enacting the statute); U.S. v. Salameh, 261 F.3d 271 , 277-78 (2d Cir.2001) (holding that multiple punishments for the same conduct does not violate the Constitution because double jeopardy principles do "no