Blockburger test in Iowa

2024We look to the available punishments for the two offenses to help discern legislative intent—specifically whether the greater offense carries “a penalty that is 3 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). 4 Despite conceding that “willful injury is not a lesser included of second-degree sex abuse under the Blockburger test,” Watkins goes on to claim that “a defendant such as Watkins cannot be convicted of both second-degree sex abuse and willful injury” and compares their elements.

2024We look to the available punishments for the two offenses to help discern legislative intent—specifically whether the greater offense carries “a penalty that is 3 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932). 4 Despite conceding that “willful injury is not a lesser included of second-degree sex abuse under the Blockburger test,” Watkins goes on to claim that “a defendant such as Watkins cannot be convicted of both second-degree sex abuse and willful injury” and compares their elements.

2024He concedes that willful injury causing serious injury is not a lesser-included offense of second- degree sexual abuse under the Blockburger test,3 also known as the legal- elements test, which “compares ‘the elements of the two offenses to determine whether it is possible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense.’”4 See State v. Johnson, 950 N.W.2d at 24 (quoting State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1995)).

2024He concedes that willful injury causing serious injury is not a lesser-included offense of second- degree sexual abuse under the Blockburger test,3 also known as the legal- elements test, which “compares ‘the elements of the two offenses to determine whether it is possible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense.’”4 See State v. Johnson, 950 N.W.2d at 24 (quoting State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1995)).

2015See State v. Bullock, 638 N.W.2d 728, 732 (Iowa 2002) (noting that “[e]ven though a crime may meet the so-called Blockburger test for lesser-included offenses, it may still be separately punished if legislative intent for multiple punishments is otherwise indicated”); State v. Perez, 563 N.W.2d 625, 629 (Iowa 1997) (holding if the legislature intends double punishment, section 701.9 is not applicable and merger is not required); State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1995) (stating even if the crimes meet the legal impossibility test, we must “study whether the legislature intended mu

2015See State v. Bullock, 638 N.W.2d 728, 732 (Iowa 2002) (noting that “[e]ven though a crime may meet the so-called Blockburger test for lesser-included offenses, it may still be separately punished if legislative intent for multiple punishments is otherwise indicated”); State v. Perez, 563 N.W.2d 625, 629 (Iowa 1997) (holding if the legislature intends double punishment, section 701.9 is not applicable and merger is not required); State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1995) (stating even if the crimes meet the legal impossibility test, we must “study whether the legislature intended mu

2015See State v. Bullock, 638 N.W.2d 728, 732 (Iowa 2002) (noting that “[e]ven though a crime may meet the so-called Blockburger test for lesser-included offenses, it may still be separately punished if legislative intent for multiple punishments is otherwise indicated”); State v. Perez, 563 N.W.2d 625, 629 (Iowa 1997) (holding if the legislature intends double punishment, section 701.9 is not applicable and merger is not required); State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1995) (stating even if the crimes meet the legal impossibility test, we must “study whether the legislature intended mu

2015See State v. Bullock, 638 N.W.2d 728, 732 (Iowa 2002) (noting that “[e]ven though a crime may meet the so-called Blockburger test for lesser-included offenses, it may still be separately punished if legislative intent for multiple punishments is otherwise indicated”); State v. Perez, 563 N.W.2d 625, 629 (Iowa 1997) (holding if the legislature intends double punishment, section 701.9 is not applicable and merger is not required); State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1995) (stating even if the crimes meet the legal impossibility test, we must “study whether the legislature intended mu

1998However, the Blockburger rule is not controlling where there is “‘a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.’ ” State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d at 58 (quoting Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 367 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 678-79 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 543 (1983); Albernaz v. U.S., 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275, 282 (1981)). “[T]he question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are ‘multiple’ is essentially one of legislative intent.” State v. Wissing, 528 N.W.2d 561, 565 (Iowa 1995) (citation omitted); see State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d at 57 (“the questi

1998However, the Blockburger rule is not controlling where there is “‘a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.’ ” State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d at 58 (quoting Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 367 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 678-79 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 543 (1983); Albernaz v. U.S., 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275, 282 (1981)). “[T]he question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are ‘multiple’ is essentially one of legislative intent.” State v. Wissing, 528 N.W.2d 561, 565 (Iowa 1995) (citation omitted); see State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d at 57 (“the questi

2019The bread crumbs in Whalen and Albernaz suggesting that multiple punishments might be imposed in some circumstances even if the Blockburger test was met led to the final destination in Missouri v. Hunter , 459 U.S. 359 , 368, 103 S.Ct. 673 , 679, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983).

2019The bread crumbs in Whalen and Albernaz suggesting that multiple punishments might be imposed in some circumstances even if the Blockburger test was met led to the final destination in Missouri v. Hunter , 459 U.S. 359 , 368, 103 S.Ct. 673 , 679, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983).

2020First, we decide whether the crimes meet the legal elements test for lesser included offenses, known as the Blockburger test.2 State v. Gallup, 500 N.W.2d 437, 441 (Iowa 1993).

2020First, we decide whether the crimes meet the legal elements test for lesser included offenses, known as the Blockburger test.2 State v. Gallup, 500 N.W.2d 437, 441 (Iowa 1993).

2019The Whalen Court declared that if the Blockburger test is met, Congress presumptively did not wish to impose cumulative punishment "in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent." Id. at 692 , 100 S.Ct. at 1438 .

2019The Whalen Court declared that if the Blockburger test is met, Congress presumptively did not wish to impose cumulative punishment "in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent." Id. at 692 , 100 S.Ct. at 1438 .

2015Consequently, all included offenses meeting the Blockburger analysis must be merged within the greater offense because this is the intent of the legislature as expressed in [section 701.9].” Id.

2015Consequently, all included offenses meeting the Blockburger analysis must be merged within the greater offense because this is the intent of the legislature as expressed in [section 701.9].” Id.

2020But the State can overcome that presumption by showing “a clear expression of legislative intent to impose multiple punishments.” Id.; see also State v. Burgos, 155 A.3d 246, 278 (Conn. Ct. App. 2017) (placing burden on the State to rebut the presumption created under the Blockburger test).

2020But the State can overcome that presumption by showing “a clear expression of legislative intent to impose multiple punishments.” Id.; see also State v. Burgos, 155 A.3d 246, 278 (Conn. Ct. App. 2017) (placing burden on the State to rebut the presumption created under the Blockburger test).

2018This is an unwarranted judicial abrogation of the clear directive contained in [Iowa Code] section 701.9.” Id. at 685-86 (footnote omitted); see also State v. Lambert, 612 N.W.2d 810, 816-17 (Iowa 2000) (Carter, J., concurring specially).

2018This is an unwarranted judicial abrogation of the clear directive contained in [Iowa Code] section 701.9.” Id. at 685-86 (footnote omitted); see also State v. Lambert, 612 N.W.2d 810, 816-17 (Iowa 2000) (Carter, J., concurring specially).

2013E.g., State v. Abrahamson, 746 N.W.2d 270, 274 (Iowa 2008) (“Under the Blockburger analysis, the court would determine whether two offenses were the ‘same’ by comparing the elements of proof required for each offense.”).

2013E.g., State v. Abrahamson, 746 N.W.2d 270, 274 (Iowa 2008) (“Under the Blockburger analysis, the court would determine whether two offenses were the ‘same’ by comparing the elements of proof required for each offense.”).

2005The “legal elements test" is also referred to as the “impossibility test,” see, e.g., State v. Shearon, 660 N.W.2d 52, 55 (Iowa 2003), and the Blockburger test, see, e.g., Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d at 344 . 2 .

2005The “legal elements test" is also referred to as the “impossibility test,” see, e.g., State v. Shearon, 660 N.W.2d 52, 55 (Iowa 2003), and the Blockburger test, see, e.g., Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d at 344 . 2 .

1998However, the Blockburger rule is not controlling where there is “‘a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.’ ” State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d at 58 (quoting Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 367 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 678-79 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 543 (1983); Albernaz v. U.S., 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275, 282 (1981)). “[T]he question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are ‘multiple’ is essentially one of legislative intent.” State v. Wissing, 528 N.W.2d 561, 565 (Iowa 1995) (citation omitted); see State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d at 57 (“the questi

1998However, the Blockburger rule is not controlling where there is “‘a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.’ ” State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d at 58 (quoting Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 367 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 678-79 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535, 543 (1983); Albernaz v. U.S., 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275, 282 (1981)). “[T]he question under the Double Jeopardy Clause whether punishments are ‘multiple’ is essentially one of legislative intent.” State v. Wissing, 528 N.W.2d 561, 565 (Iowa 1995) (citation omitted); see State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d at 57 (“the questi

1997United States v. Bennett, 44 F.3d 1364, 1374 (8th Cir.1995).

1997United States v. Bennett, 44 F.3d 1364, 1374 (8th Cir.1995).

1992See, e.g., State v. Clarke, 475 N.W.2d 193,194 (Iowa 1991).

1992See, e.g., State v. Clarke, 475 N.W.2d 193,194 (Iowa 1991).

1983Twenty-six years later the Supreme Court, on almost identical facts, refused to retreat from Blockburger in Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 392 , 78 S.Ct. 1280, 1284 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1405, 1410 (1958): Finally, we have had pressed upon us that the Blockburger doctrine offends the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

1983Twenty-six years later the Supreme Court, on almost identical facts, refused to retreat from Blockburger in Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 392 , 78 S.Ct. 1280, 1284 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1405, 1410 (1958): Finally, we have had pressed upon us that the Blockburger doctrine offends the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

1983This court followed the Blockburger analysis in State v. Cook, 261 Iowa 1341, 1346-47 , 158 N.W.2d 26, 29-30 (1968), thus permitting a prosecution for larceny of money despite a prior unsuccessful prosecution for larceny of a motor vehicle, both charges arising out of the same incident.

1983This court followed the Blockburger analysis in State v. Cook, 261 Iowa 1341, 1346-47 , 158 N.W.2d 26, 29-30 (1968), thus permitting a prosecution for larceny of money despite a prior unsuccessful prosecution for larceny of a motor vehicle, both charges arising out of the same incident.

1983An analogous result was reached in State v. Burton, 231 N.W.2d 577, 578 (Iowa 1975) (“The charges of burglary with aggravation and robbery with aggravation are separate and distinct offenses; each contains elements not included in the other.