Blockburger test in Tennessee

2026However, before we reach the Blockburger test, we need to first determine whether the General Assembly clearly intended to treat Defendant’s conduct underlying his Rutherford County and Williamson County convictions as the “same offense.” See Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 556 Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-315(b)(1) makes it unlawful for a person to “intentionally engage[] in stalking.” Code section -315(a)(4) defines “[s]talking” as “a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person [and actually caused the vict

2026However, before we reach the Blockburger test, we need to first determine whether the General Assembly clearly intended to treat Defendant’s conduct underlying his Rutherford County and Williamson County convictions as the “same offense.” See Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 556 Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-315(b)(1) makes it unlawful for a person to “intentionally engage[] in stalking.” Code section -315(a)(4) defines “[s]talking” as “a willful course of conduct involving repeated or continuing harassment of another individual that would cause a reasonable person [and actually caused the vict

2021“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.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).4 The Blockburger test, also called the same elements test, “requires an examination of the statutory elements in the abstract, without regard to the proof offered at trial in support of the offenses.” Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 544 .

2021“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.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).4 The Blockburger test, also called the same elements test, “requires an examination of the statutory elements in the abstract, without regard to the proof offered at trial in support of the offenses.” Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 544 .

2017In Watkins, our supreme court adopted the federal double jeopardy standard, more commonly known as the Blockburger test from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), and abandoned the state-specific standard set forth in State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn. 1996).

2017In Watkins, our supreme court adopted the federal double jeopardy standard, more commonly known as the Blockburger test from Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), and abandoned the state-specific standard set forth in State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn. 1996).

2004The prohibition against double jeopardy embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment2 and protects criminal defendants from being “subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” In State v. Black, 524 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1975), our supreme court adopted the Blockburger test for determining when to sustain multiple convictions which are based upon the same acts or transactions.

2004The prohibition against double jeopardy embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment2 and protects criminal defendants from being “subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” In State v. Black, 524 S.W.2d 913 (Tenn. 1975), our supreme court adopted the Blockburger test for determining when to sustain multiple convictions which are based upon the same acts or transactions.

2012In order to determine if double jeopardy attaches, our supreme court devised the following four-part test, also known as the “Denton test”: (1) a Blockburger analysis of the statutory offenses; (2) an analysis, guided by the principles of [Duchac v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237, 239 (Tenn. 1973)], of the evidence used to prove the offenses; (3) a consideration of whether there were multiple victims or discrete acts; and (4) a comparison of the purposes of the respective statutes.

2012In order to determine if double jeopardy attaches, our supreme court devised the following four-part test, also known as the “Denton test”: (1) a Blockburger analysis of the statutory offenses; (2) an analysis, guided by the principles of [Duchac v. State, 505 S.W.2d 237, 239 (Tenn. 1973)], of the evidence used to prove the offenses; (3) a consideration of whether there were multiple victims or discrete acts; and (4) a comparison of the purposes of the respective statutes.

2014State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 543 (Tenn. 2012); see State v. Cross, 362 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2012) (applying the Blockburger framework to pre-Watkins offenses).

2014State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 543 (Tenn. 2012); see State v. Cross, 362 S.W.3d 512 (Tenn. 2012) (applying the Blockburger framework to pre-Watkins offenses).

2013Our supreme court has stated that “the Blockburger test requires an examination of the statutory elements in the abstract, without regard to the proof offered . . . in support of the offenses.” Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 544 (citing State v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993)).

2013Our supreme court has stated that “the Blockburger test requires an examination of the statutory elements in the abstract, without regard to the proof offered . . . in support of the offenses.” Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 544 (citing State v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696 (1993)).

2015Under Blockburger, “[i]f each offense includes an element that the other offense does not, ‘the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.’” Id. (quoting Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n.17 (1975)); see also Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 416 (1980) (noting that Blockburger “focuses on the proof necessary to prove the statutory elements of each offense, rather than on the actual evidence to be presented at trial”).

2015Under Blockburger, “[i]f each offense includes an element that the other offense does not, ‘the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.’” Id. (quoting Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n.17 (1975)); see also Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 416 (1980) (noting that Blockburger “focuses on the proof necessary to prove the statutory elements of each offense, rather than on the actual evidence to be presented at trial”).

2015In Watkins, our supreme court “adopted the two-pronged Blockburger test for multiple description claims.” Smith, 436 S.W.3d at 767 (citing Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 556 ). “[T]he threshold inquiry under Blockburger is whether the alleged statutory violations arise from „the same act or transaction.‟” Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 545 (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 301-04 ).

2015In Watkins, our supreme court “adopted the two-pronged Blockburger test for multiple description claims.” Smith, 436 S.W.3d at 767 (citing Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 556 ). “[T]he threshold inquiry under Blockburger is whether the alleged statutory violations arise from „the same act or transaction.‟” Watkins, 362 S.W.3d at 545 (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 301-04 ).

2020A court analyzing the second prong of the Blockburger test “must examine the elements of the charged offenses in the abstract, as they are stated in the pertinent statutes, without regard to the specific facts in a given case.” State v. Martin, 505 S.W.3d 492, 510-11 (Tenn. 2016).

2020A court analyzing the second prong of the Blockburger test “must examine the elements of the charged offenses in the abstract, as they are stated in the pertinent statutes, without regard to the specific facts in a given case.” State v. Martin, 505 S.W.3d 492, 510-11 (Tenn. 2016).

2019Cf. State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 556 (Tenn. 2012) (adopting the Blockburger test for determining whether multiple convictions under different statutes violate double jeopardy); see Berry, 503 S.W.3d at 362 n.2 (order) (expressing no opinion about the substantive propriety of the trial court’s merger of two convictions because the State failed to raise the issue). - 13 - Rules of Appellate Procedure and reversing a portion of the judgment of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals) (“[T]he judgment document [for the lesser (or merged) conviction] should indicate in the “Special Conditions”

2019Cf. State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 556 (Tenn. 2012) (adopting the Blockburger test for determining whether multiple convictions under different statutes violate double jeopardy); see Berry, 503 S.W.3d at 362 n.2 (order) (expressing no opinion about the substantive propriety of the trial court’s merger of two convictions because the State failed to raise the issue). - 13 - Rules of Appellate Procedure and reversing a portion of the judgment of the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals) (“[T]he judgment document [for the lesser (or merged) conviction] should indicate in the “Special Conditions”

2021“If each offense includes an element that the other offense does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.” Id. (quoting Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n.17 (1975)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2021“If each offense includes an element that the other offense does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.” Id. (quoting Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n.17 (1975)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2010See Winningham, 958 S.W.2d at 743 (quoting State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373, 381 (Tenn. 1996)).

2010See Winningham, 958 S.W.2d at 743 (quoting State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373, 381 (Tenn. 1996)).

2007In addition to the Blockburger elements test, the double jeopardy analysis is guided by (1) whether “the same evidence is required to prove” each of the multiple offenses charged, id. at 380 , (2) whether “[d]iscrete acts [or victims] can justify multiple convictions,” id. at 381 (citing State v. Phillips, 924 S.W.2d 662 (Tenn. 1996)), and (3) a “comparison of the purposes of the respective statutes,” id. at 381.

1997See Phillips, 924 S.W.2d at 665 .

1995See Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983) (although two statutes proscribe same conduct under Blockburger test, double jeopardy not implicated when legislature specifically authorized cumulative punishments under both statutes).

1995See Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983) (although two statutes proscribe same conduct under Blockburger test, double jeopardy not implicated when legislature specifically authorized cumulative punishments under both statutes).

2000Id.

2000Id.

2026As defined, “[s]talking is a continuing offense [that] requires repeated conduct, which means two or more separate occasions.” State v. Vigil, 65 S.W.3d 26, 35 (Tenn. Crim.

2026As defined, “[s]talking is a continuing offense [that] requires repeated conduct, which means two or more separate occasions.” State v. Vigil, 65 S.W.3d 26, 35 (Tenn. Crim.

2024“Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what act the legislature intended as the ‘unit of prosecution’ under the statute.” - 105 - United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.

2024“Where two violations of the same statute rather than two violations of different statutes are charged, courts determine whether a single offense is involved not by applying the Blockburger test, but rather by asking what act the legislature intended as the ‘unit of prosecution’ under the statute.” - 105 - United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 952 (D.C.

2018See State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 545 (Tenn. 2012) (“When a court determines that separate convictions do not arise from the same act or transaction, then there cannot be a double jeopardy violation; thus, courts need not proceed to the second step of the Blockburger test.”); Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 (holding that plain error relief is only merited when all five factors have been met, including the breach of a clear and unequivocal rule of law).

2018See State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 545 (Tenn. 2012) (“When a court determines that separate convictions do not arise from the same act or transaction, then there cannot be a double jeopardy violation; thus, courts need not proceed to the second step of the Blockburger test.”); Adkisson, 899 S.W.2d at 641-42 (holding that plain error relief is only merited when all five factors have been met, including the breach of a clear and unequivocal rule of law).

2018Additionally, this court has previously held that separate convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy because the offenses “are narrowly defined by statute and each contains different elements.” State v. Branham, 501 S.W.3d 577, 593 (Tenn. Crim.

2018Additionally, this court has previously held that separate convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy because the offenses “are narrowly defined by statute and each contains different elements.” State v. Branham, 501 S.W.3d 577, 593 (Tenn. Crim.

2017Pryor v. Rose, 724 F.2d 525, 529-31 (6th Cir. 1984); see Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).

2017Pryor v. Rose, 724 F.2d 525, 529-31 (6th Cir. 1984); see Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932).

2013See State v. Reed, 689 S.W.2d 190, 193-94 (Tenn. Crim.

2013See State v. Reed, 689 S.W.2d 190, 193-94 (Tenn. Crim.

2012First, the threshold inquiry under Blockburger is whether the alleged statutory violations arise from “the same act or transaction.” See Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 301-04 , 52 S.Ct. 180 (considering first whether two sales made to the same person arose from “the same act or transaction” before determining whether “the same act or transaction” constituted “a violation of two distinct statutory provisions”); see also State v. Thompson, 197 Conn. 67 , 495 A.2d 1054, 1058 (1985); Schoonover, 133 P.3d at 62 ; State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263 , 891 A.2d 592, 599 (2006); George C.

2012First, the threshold inquiry under Blockburger is whether the alleged statutory violations arise from “the same act or transaction.” See Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 301-04 , 52 S.Ct. 180 (considering first whether two sales made to the same person arose from “the same act or transaction” before determining whether “the same act or transaction” constituted “a violation of two distinct statutory provisions”); see also State v. Thompson, 197 Conn. 67 , 495 A.2d 1054, 1058 (1985); Schoonover, 133 P.3d at 62 ; State v. Matey, 153 N.H. 263 , 891 A.2d 592, 599 (2006); George C.

2012See Caufman, 662 A.2d at 1052 . 43 .

2012See Caufman, 662 A.2d at 1052 . 43 .