21 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina 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. Moydgreen2 sentences2011An application of the Blockburger test “requires a technical comparison of the elements of the offense for which the defendant was first tried with the elements of the offense in the subsequent prosecution.” Moyd, 321 S.C. at 258 , 468 S.E.2d at 9 . 2011An application of the Blockburger test “requires a technical comparison of the elements of the offense for which the defendant was first tried with the elements of the offense in the subsequent prosecution.” Moyd, 321 S.C. at 258 , 468 S.E.2d at 9 . | 3 | 4 |
State v. Lewisgreen2 sentences2010Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct “consists of two ‘distinct’ offenses.” State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 417 , 523 S.E.2d 466, 471 (Ct.App.1999) (quoting State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 258 , 468 S.E.2d 7, 9 (Ct.App.1996)); accord Hall, 280 S.C. at 77 , 310 S.E.2d at 431 ; State v. Steadman, 216 S.C. 579, 589 , 59 S.E.2d 168, 173 (1950); State v. Lewis, 321 S.C. 146, 148 , 467 S.E.2d 265, 266 (Ct.App.1996). 5 Here, the kidnapping statute and the carjacking statute eac 2010Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct “consists of two ‘distinct’ offenses.” State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 417 , 523 S.E.2d 466, 471 (Ct.App.1999) (quoting State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 258 , 468 S.E.2d 7, 9 (Ct.App.1996)); accord Hall, 280 S.C. at 77 , 310 S.E.2d at 431 ; State v. Steadman, 216 S.C. 579, 589 , 59 S.E.2d 168, 173 (1950); State v. Lewis, 321 S.C. 146, 148 , 467 S.E.2d 265, 266 (Ct.App.1996). 5 Here, the kidnapping statute and the carjacking statute eac | 1 | 3 |
State v. Brandtgreen2 sentences2013“Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct consists of two distinct offenses.” Id. at 539, 713 S.E.2d at 597-98 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2013“Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct consists of two distinct offenses.” Id. at 539, 713 S.E.2d at 597-98 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Eldersgreen2 sentences2011“Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct consists of two distinct offenses.” Elders, 386 S.C. at 482 , 688 S.E.2d at 861 (citations omitted). 2011“Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct consists of two distinct offenses.” Elders, 386 S.C. at 482 , 688 S.E.2d at 861 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Steadmangreen2 sentences2010Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct “consists of two ‘distinct’ offenses.” State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 417 , 523 S.E.2d 466, 471 (Ct.App.1999) (quoting State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 258 , 468 S.E.2d 7, 9 (Ct.App.1996)); accord Hall, 280 S.C. at 77 , 310 S.E.2d at 431 ; State v. Steadman, 216 S.C. 579, 589 , 59 S.E.2d 168, 173 (1950); State v. Lewis, 321 S.C. 146, 148 , 467 S.E.2d 265, 266 (Ct.App.1996). 5 Here, the kidnapping statute and the carjacking statute eac 2010Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct “consists of two ‘distinct’ offenses.” State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 417 , 523 S.E.2d 466, 471 (Ct.App.1999) (quoting State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 258 , 468 S.E.2d 7, 9 (Ct.App.1996)); accord Hall, 280 S.C. at 77 , 310 S.E.2d at 431 ; State v. Steadman, 216 S.C. 579, 589 , 59 S.E.2d 168, 173 (1950); State v. Lewis, 321 S.C. 146, 148 , 467 S.E.2d 265, 266 (Ct.App.1996). 5 Here, the kidnapping statute and the carjacking statute eac | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pacegreen2 sentences2010Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct “consists of two ‘distinct’ offenses.” State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 417 , 523 S.E.2d 466, 471 (Ct.App.1999) (quoting State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 258 , 468 S.E.2d 7, 9 (Ct.App.1996)); accord Hall, 280 S.C. at 77 , 310 S.E.2d at 431 ; State v. Steadman, 216 S.C. 579, 589 , 59 S.E.2d 168, 173 (1950); State v. Lewis, 321 S.C. 146, 148 , 467 S.E.2d 265, 266 (Ct.App.1996). 5 Here, the kidnapping statute and the carjacking statute eac 2010Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct “consists of two ‘distinct’ offenses.” State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 417 , 523 S.E.2d 466, 471 (Ct.App.1999) (quoting State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 258 , 468 S.E.2d 7, 9 (Ct.App.1996)); accord Hall, 280 S.C. at 77 , 310 S.E.2d at 431 ; State v. Steadman, 216 S.C. 579, 589 , 59 S.E.2d 168, 173 (1950); State v. Lewis, 321 S.C. 146, 148 , 467 S.E.2d 265, 266 (Ct.App.1996). 5 Here, the kidnapping statute and the carjacking statute eac | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hallgreen2 sentences2010Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct “consists of two ‘distinct’ offenses.” State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 417 , 523 S.E.2d 466, 471 (Ct.App.1999) (quoting State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 258 , 468 S.E.2d 7, 9 (Ct.App.1996)); accord Hall, 280 S.C. at 77 , 310 S.E.2d at 431 ; State v. Steadman, 216 S.C. 579, 589 , 59 S.E.2d 168, 173 (1950); State v. Lewis, 321 S.C. 146, 148 , 467 S.E.2d 265, 266 (Ct.App.1996). 5 Here, the kidnapping statute and the carjacking statute eac 2010Under the Blockburger test, a defendant may be convicted of two separate crimes arising from the same conduct without being placed in double jeopardy where his conduct “consists of two ‘distinct’ offenses.” State v. Pace, 337 S.C. 407, 417 , 523 S.E.2d 466, 471 (Ct.App.1999) (quoting State v. Moyd, 321 S.C. 256, 258 , 468 S.E.2d 7, 9 (Ct.App.1996)); accord Hall, 280 S.C. at 77 , 310 S.E.2d at 431 ; State v. Steadman, 216 S.C. 579, 589 , 59 S.E.2d 168, 173 (1950); State v. Lewis, 321 S.C. 146, 148 , 467 S.E.2d 265, 266 (Ct.App.1996). 5 Here, the kidnapping statute and the carjacking statute eac | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pricegreen2 sentences2003As the South Carolina Supreme Court noted in Price , “if a sanction is determined to be civil in nature and has not been transformed into a criminal penalty, then the double jeopardy clause is not implicated and there is simply no need to conduct a Blockburger analysis.” Price, 333 S.C. at 271, n. 4 , 510 S.E.2d at 218, n. 4 . 2003As the South Carolina Supreme Court noted in Price , “if a sanction is determined to be civil in nature and has not been transformed into a criminal penalty, then the double jeopardy clause is not implicated and there is simply no need to conduct a Blockburger analysis.” Price, 333 S.C. at 271, n. 4 , 510 S.E.2d at 218, n. 4 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Hudsongreen2 sentences1998Accord, United States v. Hudson, 92 F.3d 1026, 1028, n. 3 (10th Cir.) (10th Circuit found it unnecessary to address whether offenses were the same under Blockburger since it found sanctions were not punishment); Covelli v. Crystal 1994 WL 722976 (Conn.Super.Tax 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 239 Conn. 257 , 683 A.2d 737 (1996). 1998Accord, United States v. Hudson, 92 F.3d 1026, 1028, n. 3 (10th Cir.) (10th Circuit found it unnecessary to address whether offenses were the same under Blockburger since it found sanctions were not punishment); Covelli v. Crystal 1994 WL 722976 (Conn.Super.Tax 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 239 Conn. 257 , 683 A.2d 737 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Easlergreen2 sentences1998See, e.g., State v. Easier, 327 S.C. 121 , 489 S.E.2d 617 (1997) (defendant's convictions for felony DUI causing death and reckless homicide arising from same vehicular accident were not barred by double jeopardy because the two offenses do not meet Blockburger's same-elements test; defendant's convictions for felony DUI causing great bodily injury and ABHAN arising from same vehicular accident did not violate double jeopardy under Blockburger analysis given elements of offenses were separate and distinct). 1998See, e.g., State v. Easier, 327 S.C. 121 , 489 S.E.2d 617 (1997) (defendant's convictions for felony DUI causing death and reckless homicide arising from same vehicular accident were not barred by double jeopardy because the two offenses do not meet Blockburger's same-elements test; defendant's convictions for felony DUI causing great bodily injury and ABHAN arising from same vehicular accident did not violate double jeopardy under Blockburger analysis given elements of offenses were separate and distinct). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kurzawagreen2 sentences1997Although Dixon holds Block-burger is the exclusive federal standard for reviewing double jeopardy violations under the Fifth Amendment, the issue remains whether Article I, section 12 of the South Carolina Constitution affords Easier greater protection than does the *131 Fifth Amendment. 13 As an initial matter we note that Grady was intended to apply only to successive prosecution cases. 14 Accord Wisconsin v. Kurzawa, 180 Wis.2d 502 , 509 N.W.2d 712, 717 (1994) cert. denied 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2712 , 129 L.Ed.2d 839 (1994) (recognizing there is no dispute that in cases involving multip 1997Although Dixon holds Block-burger is the exclusive federal standard for reviewing double jeopardy violations under the Fifth Amendment, the issue remains whether Article I, section 12 of the South Carolina Constitution affords Easier greater protection than does the *131 Fifth Amendment. 13 As an initial matter we note that Grady was intended to apply only to successive prosecution cases. 14 Accord Wisconsin v. Kurzawa, 180 Wis.2d 502 , 509 N.W.2d 712, 717 (1994) cert. denied 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2712 , 129 L.Ed.2d 839 (1994) (recognizing there is no dispute that in cases involving multip | 1 | 1 |
Iannelli v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996The Blockburger test “emphasizes the elements of the two crimes.” Brown, 432 U.S. at 166 , 97 S.Ct. at 2226 . “ ‘If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes....’ ”Id. (citing Ianneli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 785, n. 17 , 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1293, n. 17 , 43 L.Ed. (2d) 616 (1975)). 1996The Blockburger test “emphasizes the elements of the two crimes.” Brown, 432 U.S. at 166 , 97 S.Ct. at 2226 . “ ‘If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes....’ ”Id. (citing Ianneli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 785, n. 17 , 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1293, n. 17 , 43 L.Ed. (2d) 616 (1975)). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kerrgreen2 sentences1998But see State v. Kerr, 330 S.C. 132 , 498 S.E.2d 212 (Ct.App.1998) (holding offenses of license suspension for failure to submit to the breathalyzer under §56-5-2950, and DUI under § 56-5-2930 are separate and distinct). 1998But see State v. Kerr, 330 S.C. 132 , 498 S.E.2d 212 (Ct.App.1998) (holding offenses of license suspension for failure to submit to the breathalyzer under §56-5-2950, and DUI under § 56-5-2930 are separate and distinct). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Grady v. Corbin
red
2 sentences2011In analyzing these cases, the Court overruled Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), a decision that added the "same conduct" test to the Blockburger analysis. 2011In analyzing these cases, the Court overruled Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), a decision that added the "same conduct" test to the Blockburger analysis. | 6 | 1990–2011 |
United States v. Dixon
green
2 sentences1998In United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), the Supreme Court overruled the Grady same-conduct test, and returned to the original Blockburger test. 1998In United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), the Supreme Court overruled the Grady same-conduct test, and returned to the original Blockburger test. | 3 | 1997–2011 |
Garrett v. United States
green
2 sentences2004Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 , 105 S.Ct. 2407 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985). . 2004Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 , 105 S.Ct. 2407 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985). . | 2 | 1990–2004 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences1999The test as applied “is whether each [offense charged] requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 . 1999The test as applied “is whether each [offense charged] requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 . | 2 | 1996–1999 |
Brown v. Ohio
green
2 sentences1997Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 *130 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); State v. Amerson, 311 S.C. 316 , 428 S.E.2d 871 (1993). 10 In Blockburger the United State Supreme Court held that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, “the test to determine whether these are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 182. 11 In 1990, in Grady v. Corbin, the Court expanded Blockburger analysis, holding that even if two offenses do not have the sa 1997Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 *130 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); State v. Amerson, 311 S.C. 316 , 428 S.E.2d 871 (1993). 10 In Blockburger the United State Supreme Court held that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, “the test to determine whether these are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 182. 11 In 1990, in Grady v. Corbin, the Court expanded Blockburger analysis, holding that even if two offenses do not have the sa | 2 | 1996–1997 |
Illinois v. Vitale
green
2 sentences1997In Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 419-420 , 100 S.Ct. 2260, 2266-2267 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980), the Court held, under Blockburger analysis, that if manslaughter by automobile did not always entail proof of failure to reduce speed, then the offenses of manslaughter by automobile and failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident were not the “same offense” for double jeopardy purposes. 1997In Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 419-420 , 100 S.Ct. 2260, 2266-2267 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980), the Court held, under Blockburger analysis, that if manslaughter by automobile did not always entail proof of failure to reduce speed, then the offenses of manslaughter by automobile and failing to reduce speed to avoid an accident were not the “same offense” for double jeopardy purposes. | 2 | 1991–1997 |
Jivers v. State
green
2 sentences1996The Blockburger analysis for determination of double jeopardy issues sets forth a test where the court is faced with the “same act or transaction.” See Jivers v. State, 304 S.C. 556 , 406 S.E.2d 154 (1991) (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 offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not). 1996The Blockburger analysis for determination of double jeopardy issues sets forth a test where the court is faced with the “same act or transaction.” See Jivers v. State, 304 S.C. 556 , 406 S.E.2d 154 (1991) (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 offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not). | 2 | 1992–1996 |
Covelli v. Commissioner of Revenue Services
green
2 sentences1998Accord, United States v. Hudson, 92 F.3d 1026, 1028, n. 3 (10th Cir.) (10th Circuit found it unnecessary to address whether offenses were the same under Blockburger since it found sanctions were not punishment); Covelli v. Crystal 1994 WL 722976 (Conn.Super.Tax 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 239 Conn. 257 , 683 A.2d 737 (1996). 1998Accord, United States v. Hudson, 92 F.3d 1026, 1028, n. 3 (10th Cir.) (10th Circuit found it unnecessary to address whether offenses were the same under Blockburger since it found sanctions were not punishment); Covelli v. Crystal 1994 WL 722976 (Conn.Super.Tax 1994), rev'd on other grounds, 239 Conn. 257 , 683 A.2d 737 (1996). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Foust
green
2 sentences1997The .elements of ABHAN are 1) the unlawful act of violent injury to another, accompanied by circumstances of aggravation. 17 State v. Jones, 133 S.C. 167 , 130 S.E. 747 (1925), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12 , 479 S.E.2d 50 (1996). 1997The .elements of ABHAN are 1) the unlawful act of violent injury to another, accompanied by circumstances of aggravation. 17 State v. Jones, 133 S.C. 167 , 130 S.E. 747 (1925), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12 , 479 S.E.2d 50 (1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Bourn
green
2 sentences1997“The mere possibility that the State will seek to rely on all of the ingredients necessarily included in the [lesser] offense to establish an element of [the greater offense] would not be sufficient to bar the latter *134 prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause_ The lesser offense is included in the greater only if each of its elements is always a necessary element of the greater offense.” State v. Bourn, 139 Vt. 14 , 421 A.2d 1281 (1980) (citing Illinois v. Vitale, supra) (emphasis supplied). 1997“The mere possibility that the State will seek to rely on all of the ingredients necessarily included in the [lesser] offense to establish an element of [the greater offense] would not be sufficient to bar the latter *134 prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause_ The lesser offense is included in the greater only if each of its elements is always a necessary element of the greater offense.” State v. Bourn, 139 Vt. 14 , 421 A.2d 1281 (1980) (citing Illinois v. Vitale, supra) (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Amerson
green
2 sentences1997Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 *130 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); State v. Amerson, 311 S.C. 316 , 428 S.E.2d 871 (1993). 10 In Blockburger the United State Supreme Court held that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, “the test to determine whether these are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 182. 11 In 1990, in Grady v. Corbin, the Court expanded Blockburger analysis, holding that even if two offenses do not have the sa 1997Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 *130 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); State v. Amerson, 311 S.C. 316 , 428 S.E.2d 871 (1993). 10 In Blockburger the United State Supreme Court held that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, “the test to determine whether these are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 182. 11 In 1990, in Grady v. Corbin, the Court expanded Blockburger analysis, holding that even if two offenses do not have the sa | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Urrego v. United States
green
1 sentence1997Although Dixon holds Block-burger is the exclusive federal standard for reviewing double jeopardy violations under the Fifth Amendment, the issue remains whether Article I, section 12 of the South Carolina Constitution affords Easier greater protection than does the *131 Fifth Amendment. 13 As an initial matter we note that Grady was intended to apply only to successive prosecution cases. 14 Accord Wisconsin v. Kurzawa, 180 Wis.2d 502 , 509 N.W.2d 712, 717 (1994) cert. denied 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2712 , 129 L.Ed.2d 839 (1994) (recognizing there is no dispute that in cases involving multip | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Kurzawa v. Wisconsin
green
1 sentence1997Although Dixon holds Block-burger is the exclusive federal standard for reviewing double jeopardy violations under the Fifth Amendment, the issue remains whether Article I, section 12 of the South Carolina Constitution affords Easier greater protection than does the *131 Fifth Amendment. 13 As an initial matter we note that Grady was intended to apply only to successive prosecution cases. 14 Accord Wisconsin v. Kurzawa, 180 Wis.2d 502 , 509 N.W.2d 712, 717 (1994) cert. denied 512 U.S. 1222 , 114 S.Ct. 2712 , 129 L.Ed.2d 839 (1994) (recognizing there is no dispute that in cases involving multip | 1 | 1997–1997 |
T. H. v. T. H.
green
1 sentence1997Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 *130 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); State v. Amerson, 311 S.C. 316 , 428 S.E.2d 871 (1993). 10 In Blockburger the United State Supreme Court held that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, “the test to determine whether these are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.” 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. at 182. 11 In 1990, in Grady v. Corbin, the Court expanded Blockburger analysis, holding that even if two offenses do not have the sa | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences1997The .elements of ABHAN are 1) the unlawful act of violent injury to another, accompanied by circumstances of aggravation. 17 State v. Jones, 133 S.C. 167 , 130 S.E. 747 (1925), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12 , 479 S.E.2d 50 (1996). 1997The .elements of ABHAN are 1) the unlawful act of violent injury to another, accompanied by circumstances of aggravation. 17 State v. Jones, 133 S.C. 167 , 130 S.E. 747 (1925), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12 , 479 S.E.2d 50 (1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences1995As noted in Wilson, 311 S.C. 382 , 429 S.E. (2d) 453 (1993), the Blockburger test results in no bar to appellant’s subsequent prosecution since neither of the statutory offenses charged (trafficking in marijuana and trafficking in cocaine) is *15 a lesser included offense of the other. 1995As noted in Wilson, 311 S.C. 382 , 429 S.E. (2d) 453 (1993), the Blockburger test results in no bar to appellant’s subsequent prosecution since neither of the statutory offenses charged (trafficking in marijuana and trafficking in cocaine) is *15 a lesser included offense of the other. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Magazine
green
2 sentences1993State v. Magazine, 302 S.C. 55 , 393 S.E.2d 385 (1990). 1993State v. Magazine, 302 S.C. 55 , 393 S.E.2d 385 (1990). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Albernaz v. United States green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Missouri v. Hunter green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.