133 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 22 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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. Callegreen2 sentences2026Second, “[i]f the legislative intent is unclear, we may then turn to the ‘same evidence’ Blockburger test, which asks if the crimes are the same in law and in fact.” Id. (quoting State v. Calle, 125 Wn.2d 769, 776 , 888 P.2d 155 (1995)) (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932)). 2026Second, “[i]f the legislative intent is unclear, we may then turn to the ‘same evidence’ Blockburger test, which asks if the crimes are the same in law and in fact.” Id. (quoting State v. Calle, 125 Wn.2d 769, 776 , 888 P.2d 155 (1995)) (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932)). | 12 | 37 |
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2026Second, “[i]f the legislative intent is unclear, we may then turn to the ‘same evidence’ Blockburger test, which asks if the crimes are the same in law and in fact.” Id. (quoting State v. Calle, 125 Wn.2d 769, 776 , 888 P.2d 155 (1995)) (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932)). 2026The Blockburger test focuses on the statutory elements of each offense “because the double jeopardy clause does not 4 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L. | 10 | 78 |
United States v. Dixongreen2 sentences2005"The Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment." Gocken, 127 Wash.2d at 100 , 896 P.2d 1267 (citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)). [4] See Calle 125 Wash.2d at 777 , 888 P.2d 155 ; State v. Roybal, 82 Wash.2d 577, 580-81 , 512 P.2d 718 (1973); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). [5] United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) (reestablishing the Blockburger test and overruling the "same conduct" test embraced three years prior in Grady v. 2005"The Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment." Gocken, 127 Wash.2d at 100 , 896 P.2d 1267 (citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)). [4] See Calle 125 Wash.2d at 777 , 888 P.2d 155 ; State v. Roybal, 82 Wash.2d 577, 580-81 , 512 P.2d 718 (1973); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). [5] United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) (reestablishing the Blockburger test and overruling the "same conduct" test embraced three years prior in Grady v. | 6 | 9 |
State v. Freemangreen2 sentences2025Id. at 777 . 8 No. 58818-8-II There are some circumstances for which the Blockburger test is not dispositive of legislative intent regarding whether two offenses should be punished separately. 2025Id. at 777 . 8 No. 58818-8-II There are some circumstances for which the Blockburger test is not dispositive of legislative intent regarding whether two offenses should be punished separately. | 4 | 28 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Orangegreen2 sentences2025Therefore, in cases “‘where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions,’” the Blockburger test is “‘applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one.’” Orange, 152 Wn.2d at 817 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 ). 2025Therefore, in cases “‘where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions,’” the Blockburger test is “‘applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one.’” Orange, 152 Wn.2d at 817 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 ). | 4 | 23 |
State v. Arndtgreen2 sentences2026Ray, 5 Wn.3d at 368 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Arndt, 194 Wn.2d at 815 ). 7 See generally Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L. 2026Ray, 5 Wn.3d at 368 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Arndt, 194 Wn.2d at 815 ). 7 See generally Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L. | 4 | 5 |
In re the Personal Restraint of Borrerogreen2 sentences2025Under the controlling Blockburger test, “double jeopardy principles are violated if the defendant is convicted of offenses that are identical in fact and in law.” Borrero, 161 Wn.2d at 537 . 2023See id. at 536-38 (applying the Blockburger test where the defendant argued that his convictions for attempted first degree murder and first degree kidnapping violated double jeopardy). | 3 | 7 |
Morey v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2005Calle, 125 Wn.2d at 777 ; Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 (establishing “same evidence” or “same elements” test); State v. Reiff, 14 Wash. 664, 667 , 45 P. 318 (1896) (double jeopardy violated when “ ‘the evidence required to support a conviction [of one crime] would have been sufficient to warrant a conviction upon the other’ ”) (quoting Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871)). ¶13 When applying the Blockburger test, we do not consider the elements of the crime on an abstract level. “ ‘[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the 2005Calle, 125 Wn.2d at 777 ; Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 (establishing “same evidence” or “same elements” test); State v. Reiff, 14 Wash. 664, 667 , 45 P. 318 (1896) (double jeopardy violated when “ ‘the evidence required to support a conviction [of one crime] would have been sufficient to warrant a conviction upon the other’ ”) (quoting Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871)). ¶13 When applying the Blockburger test, we do not consider the elements of the crime on an abstract level. “ ‘[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the | 3 | 5 |
State v. Gockengreen2 sentences2018Ed. 2d 548 (1990)).2 The “same elements” test considers whether each offense contains a different element than the other: “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 a fact which the other does not.” Gocken, 127 Wn.2d at 101 (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 ). 2 The Blockburger test was the standard test for almost 60 years until Grady. 2018Ed. 2d 548 (1990)).2 The “same elements” test considers whether each offense contains a different element than the other: “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 a fact which the other does not.” Gocken, 127 Wn.2d at 101 (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 ). 2 The Blockburger test was the standard test for almost 60 years until Grady. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Valentinegreen2 sentences2007Similarly, the Court of Appeals held in State v. Valentine, 108 Wn. 2007Similarly, the Court of Appeals held in State v. Valentine, 108 Wn. | 2 | 4 |
Whalen v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025As detailed below, the Blockburger test “compare[s] the elements of the two offenses at issue to determine whether they are the same—the assumption being that the legislature ‘ordinarily does not intend to punish the same offense under two different statutes.’” Muhammad, 194 Wn.2d at 618 (opinion of Gordon McCloud, J.) (quoting Whalen, 445 U.S. at 691-92 ). 2025As detailed below, the Blockburger test “compare[s] the elements of the two offenses at issue to determine whether they are the same—the assumption being that the legislature ‘ordinarily does not intend to punish the same offense under two different statutes.’” Muhammad, 194 Wn.2d at 618 (opinion of Gordon McCloud, J.) (quoting Whalen, 445 U.S. at 691-92 ). | 2 | 3 |
| Burt v. Rashadgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Dwight Rashad v. Sherry Burtgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Illinois v. Vitalegreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kiergreen2 sentences2026Second, “[i]f the legislative intent is unclear, we may then turn to the ‘same evidence’ Blockburger test, which asks if the crimes are the same in law and in fact.” Id. (quoting State v. Calle, 125 Wn.2d 769, 776 , 888 P.2d 155 (1995)) (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932)). 2011Kelley, 168 Wash.2d at 77 , 226 P.3d 773 ("If, however, such clear legislative intent is absent, then the Blockburger test applies ... the Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction applied to discern legislative purpose in the absence of clear indications of contrary legislative intent. ") Kier, 164 Wash.2d at 804 , 194 P.3d 212 ("We first consider express or implicit legislative intent based on the criminal statutes involved. | 1 | 8 |
State v. Roybalgreen2 sentences2005"The Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment." Gocken, 127 Wash.2d at 100 , 896 P.2d 1267 (citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)). [4] See Calle 125 Wash.2d at 777 , 888 P.2d 155 ; State v. Roybal, 82 Wash.2d 577, 580-81 , 512 P.2d 718 (1973); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). [5] United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) (reestablishing the Blockburger test and overruling the "same conduct" test embraced three years prior in Grady v. 2005"The Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment." Gocken, 127 Wash.2d at 100 , 896 P.2d 1267 (citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)). [4] See Calle 125 Wash.2d at 777 , 888 P.2d 155 ; State v. Roybal, 82 Wash.2d 577, 580-81 , 512 P.2d 718 (1973); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). [5] United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) (reestablishing the Blockburger test and overruling the "same conduct" test embraced three years prior in Grady v. | 1 | 8 |
State v. Pottergreen2 sentences2023We went on to express concern about “the efficacy of the Blockburger test when the result turns on such subtle distinctions.” Id. 2017Potter is unique in that the court overlooked clear indicia of contrary legislative intent by an improper application of the Blockburger test.4 Potter involved consecutive sentences for reckless driving and reckless endangerment. 31 Wn. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Reiffgreen2 sentences2024The fact that the State did argue that Harrington was the target of Tiley’s maliciousness does not change the Blockburger test or our conclusion that, “‘the 13 No. 85668-5-I/14 evidence required to support a conviction upon one of [the charged crimes] would have been sufficient to warrant a conviction upon the other.’” Orange, 152 Wn.2d at 820 (second emphasis added) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Reiff, 14 Wash. at 667 ). 2024The fact that the State did argue that Harrington was the target of Tiley’s maliciousness does not change the Blockburger test or our conclusion that, “‘the 13 No. 85668-5-I/14 evidence required to support a conviction upon one of [the charged crimes] would have been sufficient to warrant a conviction upon the other.’” Orange, 152 Wn.2d at 820 (second emphasis added) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Reiff, 14 Wash. at 667 ). | 1 | 5 |
Grady v. Corbinred2 sentences2005"The Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment." Gocken, 127 Wash.2d at 100 , 896 P.2d 1267 (citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)). [4] See Calle 125 Wash.2d at 777 , 888 P.2d 155 ; State v. Roybal, 82 Wash.2d 577, 580-81 , 512 P.2d 718 (1973); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). [5] United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) (reestablishing the Blockburger test and overruling the "same conduct" test embraced three years prior in Grady v. 2005"The Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment." Gocken, 127 Wash.2d at 100 , 896 P.2d 1267 (citing Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 , 89 S.Ct. 2056 , 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969)). [4] See Calle 125 Wash.2d at 777 , 888 P.2d 155 ; State v. Roybal, 82 Wash.2d 577, 580-81 , 512 P.2d 718 (1973); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). [5] United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) (reestablishing the Blockburger test and overruling the "same conduct" test embraced three years prior in Grady v. | 1 | 5 |
State v. Hughesgreen2 sentences2014Therefore the two offenses in Smith were not 35 Smith, 177Wn.2dat538. 36 Smith. 177Wn.2dat545. 37 Smith, 177Wn.2dat546. 38 166 Wn.2d 675, 679 , 212 P.3d 558 (2009). 39 Hughes, 166 Wn.2d at 683-84. -9- No. 67558-3-1/10 the same in law.40 The court also found State v. Calle41 "a close analogue."42 In Calle. the court held that the defendant's separate convictions for incest and second degree rape arising from the same act of intercourse did not violate double jeopardy.43 The court reasoned that the crimes were not the same in law under the Blockburger test because "[ijncest requires proof of rel 2014Therefore the two offenses in Smith were not 35 Smith, 177Wn.2dat538. 36 Smith. 177Wn.2dat545. 37 Smith, 177Wn.2dat546. 38 166 Wn.2d 675, 679 , 212 P.3d 558 (2009). 39 Hughes, 166 Wn.2d at 683-84. -9- No. 67558-3-1/10 the same in law.40 The court also found State v. Calle41 "a close analogue."42 In Calle. the court held that the defendant's separate convictions for incest and second degree rape arising from the same act of intercourse did not violate double jeopardy.43 The court reasoned that the crimes were not the same in law under the Blockburger test because "[ijncest requires proof of rel | 1 | 4 |
State v. Kelleygreen2 sentences2011Kelley, 168 Wash.2d at 77 , 226 P.3d 773 ("If, however, such clear legislative intent is absent, then the Blockburger test applies ... the Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction applied to discern legislative purpose in the absence of clear indications of contrary legislative intent. ") Kier, 164 Wash.2d at 804 , 194 P.3d 212 ("We first consider express or implicit legislative intent based on the criminal statutes involved. 2011Kelley, 168 Wash.2d at 77 , 226 P.3d 773 ("If, however, such clear legislative intent is absent, then the Blockburger test applies ... the Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction applied to discern legislative purpose in the absence of clear indications of contrary legislative intent. ") Kier, 164 Wash.2d at 804 , 194 P.3d 212 ("We first consider express or implicit legislative intent based on the criminal statutes involved. | 1 | 4 |
State v. O'CONNORgreen2 sentences2024See State v. O’Connor, 87 Wn. 2024See State v. O’Connor, 87 Wn. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Frohsgreen2 sentences2006App. 803, 807 , 924 P.2d 384 (1996) (citing State v. Johnson, 92 Wn.2d 671, 680 , 600 P.2d 1249 (1979)).[ 6 ] We review Beaver’s constitutional challenges de novo 6 7 and may do so for the first time on appeal. 8 Attempted First Degree Robbery and Second Degree Assault ¶11 Beaver contends his convictions for attempted first degree robbery and second degree assault violate double jeopardy under both the Blockburger test and the merger doctrine. 2006App. 803, 807 , 924 P.2d 384 (1996) (citing State v. Johnson, 92 Wn.2d 671, 680 , 600 P.2d 1249 (1979)).[ 6 ] We review Beaver’s constitutional challenges de novo 6 7 and may do so for the first time on appeal. 8 Attempted First Degree Robbery and Second Degree Assault ¶11 Beaver contends his convictions for attempted first degree robbery and second degree assault violate double jeopardy under both the Blockburger test and the merger doctrine. | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Valentinegreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Louisgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Louisgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Nystagreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. MANDANASgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Schwabgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. McLaughlin, Ricogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Waller v. Georgiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Riverside Cty.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Orange
green
2 sentences2010Restraint of Orange, 152 Wash.2d 795, 815 , 100 P.3d 291 (2004))). ¶ 13 This court recently explained the framework for determining legislative intent in Kier, 164 Wash.2d at 804 , 194 P.3d 212 : We first consider express or implicit legislative intent based on the criminal statutes involved. [ State v. Calle, 125 Wash.2d 769, 776 , 888 P.2d 155 (1995).] If the legislative intent is unclear, we may then turn to the "same evidence" Blockburger test, which asks if the crimes are the same in law and in fact. 2010Restraint of Orange, 152 Wn.2d 795, 815 , 100 P.3d 291 (2004))). ¶13 This court recently explained the framework for determining legislative intent in Kier: We first consider express or implicit legislative intent based on the criminal statutes involved. [State v. Calle, 125 Wn.2d 769, 776 , 888 P.2d 155 (1995).] If the legislative intent is unclear, we may then turn to the “same evidence” Blockburger test, which asks if the crimes are the same in law and in fact. | 11 | 2005–2020 |
State v. Freeman
green
2 sentences2015A court that enters multiple convictions for the same offense violates both the federal and state constitutional guaranty against double jeopardy.1 Whether two offenses are considered separate offenses hinges upon legislative intent.2 To determine legislative intent, we first consider any express or implicit representations of legislative intent.3 In the case of first degree robbery and second degree assault, our courts have recognized that this inquiry "is a dead end; the relevant statutes provide no express or implicit representations."4 We next consider the Blockburger test, the merger doct 2015A court that enters multiple convictions for the same offense violates both the federal and state constitutional guaranty against double jeopardy.1 Whether two offenses are considered separate offenses hinges upon legislative intent.2 To determine legislative intent, we first consider any express or implicit representations of legislative intent.3 In the case of first degree robbery and second degree assault, our courts have recognized that this inquiry "is a dead end; the relevant statutes provide no express or implicit representations."4 We next consider the Blockburger test, the merger doct | 9 | 2006–2025 |
Brown v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2025We noted, “‘If each [element] 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. at 45 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L. 2025We noted, “‘If each [element] 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. at 45 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S. Ct. 2221 , 53 L. | 6 | 1992–2025 |
Gavieres v. United States
green
2 sentences2006When applying the Blockburger test, we do not consider the elements of the crime on an abstract level. “ ‘[W]here 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 a fact which the other does not.’ ” [In re Personal Restraint of] Orange, 152 Wn.2d [795,] 817 [, 100 P.3d 291 (2004)] (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 (citing Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342 , 31 S. Ct. 421 , 55 L. 2006When applying the Blockburger test, we do not consider the elements of the crime on an abstract level. “ ‘[W]here 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 a fact which the other does not.’ ” [In re Personal Restraint of] Orange, 152 Wn.2d [795,] 817 [, 100 P.3d 291 (2004)] (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 (citing Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342 , 31 S. Ct. 421 , 55 L. | 5 | 2005–2017 |
State v. Kier
green
2 sentences2011Kelley, 168 Wash.2d at 77 , 226 P.3d 773 ("If, however, such clear legislative intent is absent, then the Blockburger test applies ... the Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction applied to discern legislative purpose in the absence of clear indications of contrary legislative intent. ") Kier, 164 Wash.2d at 804 , 194 P.3d 212 ("We first consider express or implicit legislative intent based on the criminal statutes involved. 2011Kelley, 168 Wash.2d at 77 , 226 P.3d 773 ("If, however, such clear legislative intent is absent, then the Blockburger test applies ... the Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction applied to discern legislative purpose in the absence of clear indications of contrary legislative intent. ") Kier, 164 Wash.2d at 804 , 194 P.3d 212 ("We first consider express or implicit legislative intent based on the criminal statutes involved. | 5 | 2010–2013 |
In Re Borrero
green
2 sentences2026Restraint of Borrero, 161 Wn.2d 532, 537 , 167 P.3d 1106 (2007). 2024Restraint of Borrero, 161 Wn.2d 532, 537 , 167 P.3d 1106 (2007). | 4 | 2010–2026 |
State v. Kelley
green
2 sentences2011Kelley, 168 Wash.2d at 77 , 226 P.3d 773 ("If, however, such clear legislative intent is absent, then the Blockburger test applies ... the Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction applied to discern legislative purpose in the absence of clear indications of contrary legislative intent. ") Kier, 164 Wash.2d at 804 , 194 P.3d 212 ("We first consider express or implicit legislative intent based on the criminal statutes involved. 2011Kelley, 168 Wash.2d at 77 , 226 P.3d 773 ("If, however, such clear legislative intent is absent, then the Blockburger test applies ... the Blockburger test is a rule of statutory construction applied to discern legislative purpose in the absence of clear indications of contrary legislative intent. ") Kier, 164 Wash.2d at 804 , 194 P.3d 212 ("We first consider express or implicit legislative intent based on the criminal statutes involved. | 4 | 2011–2025 |
Albernaz v. United States
green
2 sentences1995The Court in Dixon ordered a return to the Blockburger "same elements” test for determining whether successive prosecutions violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. 5 We also note that the Supreme Court explored legislative history to determine whether it supported the Blockburger analysis in both Ball and Albernaz . *779 See Ball, at 862-64; Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340-42 , 67 L. 1995The Court in Dixon ordered a return to the Blockburger "same elements” test for determining whether successive prosecutions violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. 5 We also note that the Supreme Court explored legislative history to determine whether it supported the Blockburger analysis in both Ball and Albernaz . *779 See Ball, at 862-64; Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340-42 , 67 L. | 4 | 1995–2012 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2006App. 803, 807 , 924 P.2d 384 (1996) (citing State v. Johnson, 92 Wn.2d 671, 680 , 600 P.2d 1249 (1979)).[ 6 ] We review Beaver’s constitutional challenges de novo 6 7 and may do so for the first time on appeal. 8 Attempted First Degree Robbery and Second Degree Assault ¶11 Beaver contends his convictions for attempted first degree robbery and second degree assault violate double jeopardy under both the Blockburger test and the merger doctrine. 2006App. 803, 807 , 924 P.2d 384 (1996) (citing State v. Johnson, 92 Wn.2d 671, 680 , 600 P.2d 1249 (1979)).[ 6 ] We review Beaver’s constitutional challenges de novo 6 7 and may do so for the first time on appeal. 8 Attempted First Degree Robbery and Second Degree Assault ¶11 Beaver contends his convictions for attempted first degree robbery and second degree assault violate double jeopardy under both the Blockburger test and the merger doctrine. | 4 | 1995–2006 |
Texas v. Cobb
green
2 sentences2018That right does not attach to an uncharged offense unless the uncharged offense is “considered the same offense under the Blockburger test.” Cobb, 532 U.S. at 173 (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L. 2018That right does not attach to an uncharged offense unless the uncharged offense is “considered the same offense under the Blockburger test.” Cobb, 532 U.S. at 173 (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S. Ct. 180 , 76 L. | 3 | 2006–2018 |
| State v. Adel green | 3 | 2005–2014 |
| Iannelli v. United States green | 3 | 2006–2012 |
| State v. Birgen green | 3 | 1999–2002 |
| State v. Leming green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Muhammad green | 2 | 2020–2021 |
| State v. Marchi green | 2 | 2014–2020 |
| State v. Villanueva-Gonzalez green | 2 | 2014–2019 |
| State v. Jackman green | 2 | 2018–2019 |
| In re the Personal Restraint of Francis green | 2 | 2014–2015 |
| In Re Francis green | 2 | 2014–2015 |
| State v. Hughes green | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Vladovic green | 2 | 1996–2012 |
| Missouri v. Hunter green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Garrett v. United States green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Adel green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Read green | 2 | 2004–2005 |
| State v. Read green | 2 | 2004–2005 |
| State v. Read green | 2 | 2004–2005 |
| United States v. Roy Condy Woods green | 2 | 1998–1998 |
| State v. Laviollette green | 2 | 1994–1995 |
| In re the Personal Restraint of Percer green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In Re Percer neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Berg green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Eaton green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Leming green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Rivera green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Tili green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Dye neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Martin green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.