139 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2025 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana 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. Knowlesgreen2 sentences2015State v. Crandell, 05-1060 (La.3/10/06), 924 So.2d 122 ; State v. Knowles, 392 So.2d 651 (La.1980); Broussard, supra. |nThe two tests used by Louisiana courts when examining double jeopardy violations are the “distinct fact” or the Blockburger 1 test and the “same evidence test.” 2 The Blockburger test determines whether each crime requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. 2015State v. Crandell, 05-1060 (La.3/10/06), 924 So.2d 122 ; State v. Knowles, 392 So.2d 651 (La.1980); Broussard, supra. |nThe two tests used by Louisiana courts when examining double jeopardy violations are the “distinct fact” or the Blockburger 1 test and the “same evidence test.” 2 The Blockburger test determines whether each crime requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. | 16 | 27 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2001In State v. Pendelton, 96-367 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/97) ; 696 So.2d 144, 154 , writ denied, 97-1714 (La.12/19/97); 706 So.2d 450 , the court explained: "Although the Louisiana Supreme Court has accepted both the Blockburger test and the same evidence test, it has principally relied on the `same evidence' test to evaluate double jeopardy claims." State v. Miller, 571 So.2d 603 (La.1990). 2001In State v. Pendelton, 96-367 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/28/97) ; 696 So.2d 144, 154 , writ denied, 97-1714 (La.12/19/97); 706 So.2d 450 , the court explained: "Although the Louisiana Supreme Court has accepted both the Blockburger test and the same evidence test, it has principally relied on the `same evidence' test to evaluate double jeopardy claims." State v. Miller, 571 So.2d 603 (La.1990). | 15 | 18 |
State v. Steelegreen2 sentences2016Louisiana Courts use two tests to determine whether double jeopardy exists: 1) the Blockburger test established by Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), and 2) the “same evidence test”, established by State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175 (La.1980). 2016Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), and is embodied in La.C.Cr.P. 596: “Double jeopardy exists in a second trial only when the charge in that trial is: (1) Identical with or a different grade of the same offense for which the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial, whether or not a responsive verdict could have been rendered in the first trial as to the charge in the second trial; or (2) Based on a part of a continuous offense for which offense the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial.” Louisiana uses both the “Blockburger test” and the “same evid | 6 | 39 |
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019The defendant urged the trial court to " once again, [ acknowledge] . . the evidentiary and legal shortcomings of the State' s case." The defendant asked the trial court to " analyze [ the defendant' s] convictions, for the first time, under the newly -required [ Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 1932 )] test." z In his motion for new trial, the defendant asked the court to " make 2 The Blockburger test is as follows: The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied 2019The defendant urged the trial court to " once again, [ acknowledge] . . the evidentiary and legal shortcomings of the State' s case." The defendant asked the trial court to " analyze [ the defendant' s] convictions, for the first time, under the newly -required [ Blockburger v. U.S., 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 1932 )] test." z In his motion for new trial, the defendant asked the court to " make 2 The Blockburger test is as follows: The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied | 4 | 67 |
State v. Vaughngreen2 sentences2013La.C.Cr.P. art. 596; State v. Vaughn, supra. The “Blockburger test” was established by the Supreme Court in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), in which the Court stated: The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes 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. |sOn the other hand, the “same evidence test”, adopted and explained in State v. Steele, 387 2005Louisiana uses both the " Blockburger test" and the "same evidence test." State v. Vaughn, 431 So.2d 763 (La. 1983); State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175 (La.1980). . . . . | 4 | 21 |
State v. Murraygreen2 sentences2020See State v. Murray, 2000- 1258 ( La. 9/ 18/ 01), 799 So. 2d 453 , 455- 56 per curiam). 2020See State v. Murray, 2000- 1258 ( La. 9/ 18/ 01), 799 So. 2d 453 , 455- 56 per curiam). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Fordgreen2 sentences2014State v. Ford, 608 So.2d 1058, 1063-1064 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992). 2014State v. Ford, 608 So.2d 1058, 1063-1064 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992). | 3 | 3 |
Brown v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2016Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), and is embodied in La.C.Cr.P. 596: “Double jeopardy exists in a second trial only when the charge in that trial is: (1) Identical with or a different grade of the same offense for which the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial, whether or not a responsive verdict could have been rendered in the first trial as to the charge in the second trial; or (2) Based on a part of a continuous offense for which offense the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial.” Louisiana uses both the “Blockburger test” and the “same evid 2016Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), and is embodied in La.C.Cr.P. 596: “Double jeopardy exists in a second trial only when the charge in that trial is: (1) Identical with or a different grade of the same offense for which the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial, whether or not a responsive verdict could have been rendered in the first trial as to the charge in the second trial; or (2) Based on a part of a continuous offense for which offense the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial.” Louisiana uses both the “Blockburger test” and the “same evid | 2 | 12 |
State v. Hayesgreen2 sentences2016Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), and is embodied in La.C.Cr.P. 596: “Double jeopardy exists in a second trial only when the charge in that trial is: (1) Identical with or a different grade of the same offense for which the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial, whether or not a responsive verdict could have been rendered in the first trial as to the charge in the second trial; or (2) Based on a part of a continuous offense for which offense the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial.” Louisiana uses both the “Blockburger test” and the “same evid 2016State v. Hayes, 412 So.2d at 1325 . | 2 | 9 |
Grady v. Corbinred2 sentences1994In United States v. Dixon, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its reliance on the Blockburger test in evaluating double jeopardy claims, but it overruled Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), which had also incorporated the broader "same conduct” test. 1994In United States v. Dixon, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed its reliance on the Blockburger test in evaluating double jeopardy claims, but it overruled Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), which had also incorporated the broader "same conduct” test. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Sandifergreen2 sentences2009State v. Steele, supra. As noted by the Louisiana Supreme Court, “the Double Jeopardy Clause, under both the [Blockburger test] and the ‘same evidence’ test, prevents an offender from being convicted of both a felony murder and the underlying felony.” State v. Sandifer, 1995-2226 (La.9/05/96), 679 So.2d 1324, 1329 . 2009Cf. State v. Sims, supra; State v. Sandifer, supra. Applying the Blockburger test in the instant case, we determine that a conviction for sexual battery requires proof of an additional fact that aggravated incest/molestation of a juvenile does not, and vice versa. | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Howardgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Helougreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cartergreen2 sentences2019See also State v. Helou , 02-2302 (La. 10/23/03), 857 So.2d 1024 , 1030 (wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court found the evidence against the defendant insufficient to prove "serious physical injury" as contemplated under the second degree battery statute but entered a conviction for simple battery, which it found to be a responsive verdict to second degree battery); Compare also State v. Carter , 09-2345 (La. 10/28/09), 21 So.3d 264 , 265 (wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court distinguished between aggravated battery and second degree battery finding that, a conviction for aggravated battery "req 2019See also State v. Helou , 02-2302 (La. 10/23/03), 857 So.2d 1024 , 1030 (wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court found the evidence against the defendant insufficient to prove "serious physical injury" as contemplated under the second degree battery statute but entered a conviction for simple battery, which it found to be a responsive verdict to second degree battery); Compare also State v. Carter , 09-2345 (La. 10/28/09), 21 So.3d 264 , 265 (wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court distinguished between aggravated battery and second degree battery finding that, a conviction for aggravated battery "req | 2 | 2 |
| Texas v. Cobbgreen | 2 | 2 |
Illinois v. Vitalegreen2 sentences2020See Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U. S. 410, 416 , 100 S. Ct. 2260, 2265 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 228 ( 1980) (" the Blockburger test focuses on the proof necessary to prove the statutory elements of each offense, rather than on the actual evidence to be presented at trial."). 2020See Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U. S. 410, 416 , 100 S. Ct. 2260, 2265 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 228 ( 1980) (" the Blockburger test focuses on the proof necessary to prove the statutory elements of each offense, rather than on the actual evidence to be presented at trial."). | 1 | 6 |
United States v. Dixongreen2 sentences2008Dixon, 509 U.S. at 704 , 113 S.Ct. at 2856 (the same-elements test, "sometimes referred to as the `Blockburger' test, inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the `same offence' and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution."). 2008Dixon, 509 U.S. at 704 , 113 S.Ct. at 2856 (the same-elements test, "sometimes referred to as the `Blockburger' test, inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the `same offence' and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution."). | 1 | 3 |
Gavieres v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1980See also Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 , 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911). *1091 Sometimes called the "distinct fact" test, the Blockburger test depends on the evidence required to convict, not the evidence introduced at trial. 1980See also Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 , 31 S.Ct. 421 , 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911). *1091 Sometimes called the "distinct fact" test, the Blockburger test depends on the evidence required to convict, not the evidence introduced at trial. | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Nicholsgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Hamptongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ohio v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Wikberg v. Hendersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mageegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Roegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Guillorygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Doughty
green
2 sentences2016Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), and is embodied in La.C.Cr.P. 596: “Double jeopardy exists in a second trial only when the charge in that trial is: (1) Identical with or a different grade of the same offense for which the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial, whether or not a responsive verdict could have been rendered in the first trial as to the charge in the second trial; or (2) Based on a part of a continuous offense for which offense the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial.” Louisiana uses both the “Blockburger test” and the “same evid 1998The Blockburger test is as follows: "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 different offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not." See State v. Coody, 448 So.2d 100 (La. 1984); State v. Vaughn, 431 So.2d 763 (La.1983); State v. Knowles, 392 So.2d 651 (La.1980); and State v. Doughty, 379 So.2d 1088 (La.1980). | 10 | 1983–2016 |
State v. Didier
green
2 sentences2016Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), and is embodied in La.C.Cr.P. 596: “Double jeopardy exists in a second trial only when the charge in that trial is: (1) Identical with or a different grade of the same offense for which the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial, whether or not a responsive verdict could have been rendered in the first trial as to the charge in the second trial; or (2) Based on a part of a continuous offense for which offense the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial.” Louisiana uses both the “Blockburger test” and the “same evid 2016Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), and is embodied in La.C.Cr.P. 596: “Double jeopardy exists in a second trial only when the charge in that trial is: (1) Identical with or a different grade of the same offense for which the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial, whether or not a responsive verdict could have been rendered in the first trial as to the charge in the second trial; or (2) Based on a part of a continuous offense for which offense the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial.” Louisiana uses both the “Blockburger test” and the “same evid | 9 | 1983–2016 |
State v. Ceasar
neutral
2 sentences2016State v. Ceasar, 37,770 (La.App.2d Cir.10/09/03), 856 So.2d 236 . 2013State v. Ceasar, 37,770 (La.App.2d Cir.10/9/03), 856 So.2d 236 . | 7 | 2009–2016 |
State v. Barton
green
2 sentences2010In State v. Jacobs, 07-1370, pp. 4-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/5/08), 987 So.2d 286, 289-90 , writ denied, 08-2000 (La.4/3/09), 6 So.3d 769 , wherein the defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and forcible rape, this court discussed double jeopardy: In State v. Barton, 02-163, pp. 17-18, (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/30/03), 857 So.2d 1189, 1201-02 , writ denied, 03-3012 (La.2/20/04), 866 So.2d 817 , the court summarized the two tests used by Louisiana courts use [sic] in examining violations of double jeopardy as follows: The “distinct fact” test, commonly referred to as the Blockburger test, is taken fr 2010In State v. Jacobs, 07-1370, pp. 4-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/5/08), 987 So.2d 286, 289-90 , writ denied, 08-2000 (La.4/3/09), 6 So.3d 769 , wherein the defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and forcible rape, this court discussed double jeopardy: In State v. Barton, 02-163, pp. 17-18, (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/30/03), 857 So.2d 1189, 1201-02 , writ denied, 03-3012 (La.2/20/04), 866 So.2d 817 , the court summarized the two tests used by Louisiana courts use [sic] in examining violations of double jeopardy as follows: The “distinct fact” test, commonly referred to as the Blockburger test, is taken fr | 5 | 2006–2010 |
State v. Barton
neutral
2 sentences2010In State v. Jacobs, 07-1370, pp. 4-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/5/08), 987 So.2d 286, 289-90 , writ denied, 08-2000 (La.4/3/09), 6 So.3d 769 , wherein the defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and forcible rape, this court discussed double jeopardy: In State v. Barton, 02-163, pp. 17-18, (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/30/03), 857 So.2d 1189, 1201-02 , writ denied, 03-3012 (La.2/20/04), 866 So.2d 817 , the court summarized the two tests used by Louisiana courts use [sic] in examining violations of double jeopardy as follows: The “distinct fact” test, commonly referred to as the Blockburger test, is taken fr 2010In State v. Jacobs, 07-1370, pp. 4-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/5/08), 987 So.2d 286, 289-90 , writ denied, 08-2000 (La.4/3/09), 6 So.3d 769 , wherein the defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary and forcible rape, this court discussed double jeopardy: In State v. Barton, 02-163, pp. 17-18, (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/30/03), 857 So.2d 1189, 1201-02 , writ denied, 03-3012 (La.2/20/04), 866 So.2d 817 , the court summarized the two tests used by Louisiana courts use [sic] in examining violations of double jeopardy as follows: The “distinct fact” test, commonly referred to as the Blockburger test, is taken fr | 5 | 2006–2010 |
State v. Lefeure
green
2 sentences2025Lefeure, 778 So.2d at 751 . 2025Lefeure, 778 So.2d at 751 . | 4 | 2019–2025 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2016Under the Blockburger test, “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 different offenses or only-one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” Gibson , 03-0647, p. 9, 867 So.2d at 799 ; State v. Smith, 95-0061, p. 4 (La.7/2/96), 676 So.2d 1068, 1069 . 2016Under the Blockburger test, “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 different offenses or only-one, is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” Gibson , 03-0647, p. 9, 867 So.2d at 799 ; State v. Smith, 95-0061, p. 4 (La.7/2/96), 676 So.2d 1068, 1069 . | 4 | 2014–2016 |
State v. Barakat
green
2 sentences2015State v. Crandell, 2005-1060 (Lag/10/06),13 924 So.2d 122 ; State v. Redfearn, supra. The two tests used by Louisiana courts when examining double jeopardy violations are the “distinct fact’’ 7 Blockburger test and the “same evidence test.” 8 Under the Blockburger test; two offenses are not the same for purposes of double jeopardy if “each crime requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” State v. Price, 39,582 (La.App.2d Cir.3/23/05), 899 So.2d 633 ; State v. Barakat, 38,419 (La.App.2d Cir.6/23/04), 877 So.2d 223 . 2015State v. Crandell, 2005-1060 (Lag/10/06),13 924 So.2d 122 ; State v. Redfearn, supra. The two tests used by Louisiana courts when examining double jeopardy violations are the “distinct fact’’ 7 Blockburger test and the “same evidence test.” 8 Under the Blockburger test; two offenses are not the same for purposes of double jeopardy if “each crime requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” State v. Price, 39,582 (La.App.2d Cir.3/23/05), 899 So.2d 633 ; State v. Barakat, 38,419 (La.App.2d Cir.6/23/04), 877 So.2d 223 . | 4 | 2007–2015 |
State v. Fairman
green
2 sentences2018Fairman , 173 So.3d at 1289 . 2018Fairman , 173 So.3d at 1289 . | 3 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Crandell
green
2 sentences2015State v. Crandell, 2005-1060 (Lag/10/06),13 924 So.2d 122 ; State v. Redfearn, supra. The two tests used by Louisiana courts when examining double jeopardy violations are the “distinct fact’’ 7 Blockburger test and the “same evidence test.” 8 Under the Blockburger test; two offenses are not the same for purposes of double jeopardy if “each crime requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” State v. Price, 39,582 (La.App.2d Cir.3/23/05), 899 So.2d 633 ; State v. Barakat, 38,419 (La.App.2d Cir.6/23/04), 877 So.2d 223 . 2015State v. Crandell, 2005-1060 (Lag/10/06),13 924 So.2d 122 ; State v. Redfearn, supra. The two tests used by Louisiana courts when examining double jeopardy violations are the “distinct fact’’ 7 Blockburger test and the “same evidence test.” 8 Under the Blockburger test; two offenses are not the same for purposes of double jeopardy if “each crime requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” State v. Price, 39,582 (La.App.2d Cir.3/23/05), 899 So.2d 633 ; State v. Barakat, 38,419 (La.App.2d Cir.6/23/04), 877 So.2d 223 . | 3 | 2014–2015 |
State v. Blackson
green
2 sentences2009See, State v. Price, supra. To determine whether two offenses are the same for purposes of double jeopardy analysis, Louisiana employs both the “Blockburger test” lifiand the “same evidence test.” State v. Knowles, 392 So.2d 651 (La.1980); State v. Price, supra. The “Blockburger test,” established by the United States Supreme Court in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), states that two offenses are not the same for purposes of double jeopardy if “each crime requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” State v. Barakat, 38,419 (La. 2009To determine whether two offenses are the same for purposes of double jeopardy analysis, Louisiana employs both the “Blockburger test” and the “same evidence test.” State v. Knowles, 392 So.2d 651 (La.1980); State v. Brown, supra; State v. Price, supra. The “Blockburger test,” established by the United States Supreme Court in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), states that two offenses are not the same for purposes of double jeopardy if “each crime requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” State v. Barakat, 38,419 (La.App. 2d C | 3 | 2007–2009 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2000State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175 (1980); State v. Roy Warner,[ (La.App.4th Cir. 1995), 653 So.2d 57 ] supra ; State v. Smith, 94-0621 (La.App.4 Cir. 12/15/94), 647 So.2d 1321 ; State v. Williams, 92-2080 (La. 1997State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175 (1980); State v. Roy Warner, supra [ 653 So.2d 57 (1995)]; State v. Smith, 94-0621 (La.App. 4th Cir. 12/15/94), 647 So.2d 1321 ; State v. Williams, 92-2080 (La.App. 4th Cir. 12/15/94), 647 So.2d 1244 . | 3 | 1995–2000 |
State v. Warner
green
2 sentences2000State v. Steele, 387 So.2d 1175 (1980); State v. Roy Warner,[ (La.App.4th Cir. 1995), 653 So.2d 57 ] supra ; State v. Smith, 94-0621 (La.App.4 Cir. 12/15/94), 647 So.2d 1321 ; State v. Williams, 92-2080 (La. 1998See State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), 679 So.2d 1324, 1329 ; State v. Woods, 94-2650 (La.App. 4 Cir. 4/20/95) , 654 So.2d 809 , writ denied, 95-1252 (La.6/30/95), 657 So.2d 1035 ; State v. Warner, 94-2649 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/16/95) , 653 So.2d 57 , writ denied, 95-0943 (La.5/19/95), 654 So.2d 1089 . | 3 | 1997–2000 |
Chavez-Mejia v. United States
green
2 sentences2025If either statute contains an element not also found in the other statute, the statutes “fail” the Blockburger test, and the defendant may not be punished under both of them “in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” Id. 2025If either statute contains an element not also found in the other statute, the statutes “fail” the Blockburger test, and the defendant may not be punished under both of them “in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” Id. | 2 | 2022–2025 |
State v. Fontenot
green
2 sentences1988Knowles , however, of slightly later vintage than Steele , did not resolve the conflict as the Chief Justice incisively resolved the issue there in favor of the defendant based on the concept of collateral estoppel set forth in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). 1 However, he later discussed the Blockburger test in favorable terms in his concurrence to State v. Fontenot, 408 So.2d 919 (La.1982), Dixon, C.J. concurring at 921. 1988Knowles , however, of slightly later vintage than Steele , did not resolve the conflict as the Chief Justice incisively resolved the issue there in favor of the defendant based on the concept of collateral estoppel set forth in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970). 1 However, he later discussed the Blockburger test in favorable terms in his concurrence to State v. Fontenot, 408 So.2d 919 (La.1982), Dixon, C.J. concurring at 921. | 2 | 1988–2025 |
| United States v. Heath A. Singleton and Douglas Joseph Aleman green | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| Iannelli v. United States green | 2 | 1988–2019 |
| Missouri v. Hunter green | 2 | 1996–2018 |
| State v. Cooley green | 2 | 2017–2018 |
| State v. Gibson green | 2 | 2014–2016 |
| State v. Childs neutral | 2 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. German green | 2 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Green green | 2 | 2011–2012 |
| State v. Cloud neutral | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Cloud neutral | 2 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Love green | 2 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Jackson green | 2 | 1998–2001 |
| Whalen v. United States green | 2 | 1996–1998 |
| State v. Coody green | 2 | 1996–1998 |
| State v. Carouthers green | 2 | 1995–1998 |
| State v. Carouthers green | 2 | 1995–1998 |
| Ashe v. Swenson green | 2 | 1988–1991 |
| Garner v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Pegues green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Ball v. United States green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Anderson green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Williams neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Balentine neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Frank neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Monroe neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.