Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Rhode Island opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Rhode Island 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003The Blockburger test compares the elements of the offenses to see whether "each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Id. at 304. 2003The Blockburger test compares the elements of the offenses to see whether "each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Id. at 304. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2009See State v. Davis, 120 R.I. 82, 86 , 384 A.2d 1061, 1064 (1978) (acknowledging adoption of Blockburger test). 2009See State v. Davis, 120 R.I. 82, 86 , 384 A.2d 1061, 1064 (1978) (acknowledging adoption of Blockburger test). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Bolarinhogreen2 sentences2010In Bolarinho, 850 A.2d at 910-11 , we held that the counts had merged for double jeopardy purposes under the Blockburger analysis. 2010In Bolarinho, 850 A.2d at 910-11 , we held that the counts had merged for double jeopardy purposes under the Blockburger analysis. | 1 | 2 |
Missouri v. Huntergreen2 sentences2003Id. “[T]he Blockburger test is a 'rule of statutory construction,' and because it serves as a means of discerning [legislative] purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” Id. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. at 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d at 543 (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275, 282 (1981)). 2003Id. “[T]he Blockburger test is a 'rule of statutory construction,' and because it serves as a means of discerning [legislative] purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” Id. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. at 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d at 543 (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275, 282 (1981)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Marsichgreen2 sentences2013Although we agree with the trial justice’s denial of the Rule 29 motion, we arrive at our conclusion after treading a different path. 1 Standard of Review An alleged violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause is, “ ‘a mixed question of *795 law and fact of constitutional dimension!,]’ and therefore our review of such a claim is de novo.” State v. Marsich, 10 A.3d 435, 441 (R.I.2010) (quoting State v. Stone, 924 A.2d 773, 778 (R.I.2007)). 2013Although we agree with the trial justice’s denial of the Rule 29 motion, we arrive at our conclusion after treading a different path. 1 Standard of Review An alleged violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause is, “ ‘a mixed question of *795 law and fact of constitutional dimension!,]’ and therefore our review of such a claim is de novo.” State v. Marsich, 10 A.3d 435, 441 (R.I.2010) (quoting State v. Stone, 924 A.2d 773, 778 (R.I.2007)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stonegreen2 sentences2013Although we agree with the trial justice’s denial of the Rule 29 motion, we arrive at our conclusion after treading a different path. 1 Standard of Review An alleged violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause is, “ ‘a mixed question of *795 law and fact of constitutional dimension!,]’ and therefore our review of such a claim is de novo.” State v. Marsich, 10 A.3d 435, 441 (R.I.2010) (quoting State v. Stone, 924 A.2d 773, 778 (R.I.2007)). 2013Although we agree with the trial justice’s denial of the Rule 29 motion, we arrive at our conclusion after treading a different path. 1 Standard of Review An alleged violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause is, “ ‘a mixed question of *795 law and fact of constitutional dimension!,]’ and therefore our review of such a claim is de novo.” State v. Marsich, 10 A.3d 435, 441 (R.I.2010) (quoting State v. Stone, 924 A.2d 773, 778 (R.I.2007)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Merciergreen2 sentences2004Each count in the information alleged a violation of § 11-5-2, “Felony Assault.” Section 11-5-2, formerly entitled “Assault or Battery with a Dangerous Weapon or Substance,” provided that “every person who shall make an assault or battery, or both, with a dangerous weapon, or with acid or other dangerous substance, * * * shall be punished * * *.” In 1981, the statute was amended by the General Assembly. 3 The offense was renamed “Felony Assault” and provides: “Felony Assault. — (a) Every person who shall make an assault or battery, or both, with a dangerous weapon, or with acid or other danger 2004Each count in the information alleged a violation of § 11-5-2, “Felony Assault.” Section 11-5-2, formerly entitled “Assault or Battery with a Dangerous Weapon or Substance,” provided that “every person who shall make an assault or battery, or both, with a dangerous weapon, or with acid or other dangerous substance, * * * shall be punished * * *.” In 1981, the statute was amended by the General Assembly. 3 The offense was renamed “Felony Assault” and provides: “Felony Assault. — (a) Every person who shall make an assault or battery, or both, with a dangerous weapon, or with acid or other danger | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriquezgreen1 sentence2004See Rodriquez, 731 A.2d at 729 (relying on statute to define elements of compounding a felony for purposes of applying Blockburger test). | 1 | 1 |
Raymond Pandelli v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003See Pandelli v. United States, 635 F.2d 533 (6th Cir. 1980). 2003See Pandelli v. United States, 635 F.2d 533 (6th Cir. 1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ashnessgreen2 sentences2003Ashness, 461 A.2d at 667 n. 11. 2003Ashness, 461 A.2d at 667 n. 11. | 1 | 1 |
Albernaz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003Id. “[T]he Blockburger test is a 'rule of statutory construction,' and because it serves as a means of discerning [legislative] purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” Id. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. at 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d at 543 (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275, 282 (1981)). 2003Id. “[T]he Blockburger test is a 'rule of statutory construction,' and because it serves as a means of discerning [legislative] purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.” Id. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. at 679 , 74 L.Ed.2d at 543 (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1143 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275, 282 (1981)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grabowskigreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., State v. Grabowski, 644 A.2d 1282, 1286 (R.I.1994) (holding that, under Blockburger, second-degree murder is a lesser-ineluded offense of first-degree murder) (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 804 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 806 , 309 (1932)). 2002See, e.g., State v. Grabowski, 644 A.2d 1282, 1286 (R.I.1994) (holding that, under Blockburger, second-degree murder is a lesser-ineluded offense of first-degree murder) (citing Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 804 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 806 , 309 (1932)). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Scott v. Berberiangreen2 sentences1994Scott v. Berberian, 109 R.I. 309, 316 , 284 A.2d 590, 594-95 (1971) (adopting the Blockburger test). 1994Scott v. Berberian, 109 R.I. 309, 316 , 284 A.2d 590, 594-95 (1971) (adopting the Blockburger test). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burgessgreen2 sentences1989In State v. Burgess, 465 A.2d 204, 205 (R.I.1983), we acknowledged the state’s concession that this court “should vacate the conviction of committing an abominable and detestable crime against nature because this conviction and the first-degree sexual-assault conviction result from the same forcible-fellatio offense, thereby violating the double-jeopardy clause.” Having previously decided the precise point of law raised by defendant in a manner favorable to him, we must next determine whether there is any substance in fact to his argument. 1989In State v. Burgess, 465 A.2d 204, 205 (R.I.1983), we acknowledged the state’s concession that this court “should vacate the conviction of committing an abominable and detestable crime against nature because this conviction and the first-degree sexual-assault conviction result from the same forcible-fellatio offense, thereby violating the double-jeopardy clause.” Having previously decided the precise point of law raised by defendant in a manner favorable to him, we must next determine whether there is any substance in fact to his argument. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boudreaugreen2 sentences1981See State v. Boudreau, 113 R.I. 497 , 322 A.2d 626 (1974); State ex rel. 1981See State v. Boudreau, 113 R.I. 497 , 322 A.2d 626 (1974); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences1980We also note with approval the lucid application of the Blockburger test by the Maryland Court of Appeals in Thomas v. State, 277 Md. 257, 267 , 353 A.2d 240, 246-47 (1976): “The required evidence is that which is minimally necessary to secure a conviction for each statutory offense. 1980We also note with approval the lucid application of the Blockburger test by the Maryland Court of Appeals in Thomas v. State, 277 Md. 257, 267 , 353 A.2d 240, 246-47 (1976): “The required evidence is that which is minimally necessary to secure a conviction for each statutory offense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Rhode Island. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Iannelli v. United States
green
2 sentences1982In State v. Davis, R.I., 384 A.2d at 1064 , we further explained how the Blockburger test is to be applied: “The test centers on the elements of the two crimes with the goal of ascertaining whether each crime charged, notwithstanding a possible factual overlap, requires proof of an element that the other *1386 does not Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n.17, 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 1293-94 n. 17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 , 627 n.17 (1975). 1982In State v. Davis, R.I., 384 A.2d at 1064 , we further explained how the Blockburger test is to be applied: “The test centers on the elements of the two crimes with the goal of ascertaining whether each crime charged, notwithstanding a possible factual overlap, requires proof of an element that the other *1386 does not Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n.17, 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 1293-94 n. 17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 , 627 n.17 (1975). | 2 | 1982–1996 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2004The analytical test has been most recently set out in State v. Rodriquez , 822 A.2d at 905 -06 . 2004The analytical test has been most recently set out in State v. Rodriquez , 822 A.2d at 905 -06 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.