14 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morey v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2024“A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932) (quoting Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871)). 2024“A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932) (quoting Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871)). | 2 | 2 |
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024“A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932) (quoting Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871)). 2024“A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932) (quoting Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871)). | 1 | 3 |
Craig v. Stategreen2 sentences2014The Blockburger test has been applied by this court, see Cothron, 344 Ark. 697 , 42 S.W.3d 543 ; Craig v. State, 314 Ark. 585 , 863 S.W.2d 825 (1993), and the Arkansas General Assembly has codified this constitutional protection at Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-1-110 (Supp. 2009).4 While we agree that possession of a controlled substance is a lesser-included offense of manufacturing that substance, Craig, 314 Ark. 585 , 863 S.W.2d 825 , we disagree that appellant’s rights against double jeopardy were violated in the instant case because he has not established in the habeas petition that hi 2014The Blockburger test has been applied by this court, see Cothron, 344 Ark. 697 , 42 S.W.3d 543 ; Craig v. State, 314 Ark. 585 , 863 S.W.2d 825 (1993), and the Arkansas General Assembly has codified this constitutional protection at Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-1-110 (Supp. 2009).4 While we agree that possession of a controlled substance is a lesser-included offense of manufacturing that substance, Craig, 314 Ark. 585 , 863 S.W.2d 825 , we disagree that appellant’s rights against double jeopardy were violated in the instant case because he has not established in the habeas petition that hi | 1 | 3 |
Diaz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996The “jurisdictional exception” was stated in Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 449 (1912), as follows: [T]he justice of the peace, although possessed of jurisdiction to try the accused for assault and battery, was without jurisdiction to try him fiar homicide; and, of course, the jeopardy incident to the trial before the justice did not extend to an offense beyond his jurisdiction. 1996The “jurisdictional exception” was stated in Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442, 449 (1912), as follows: [T]he justice of the peace, although possessed of jurisdiction to try the accused for assault and battery, was without jurisdiction to try him fiar homicide; and, of course, the jeopardy incident to the trial before the justice did not extend to an offense beyond his jurisdiction. | 1 | 1 |
Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. Industrial Commissiongreen2 sentences1994Craig v. State, 314 Ark. 585, 588 , 863 S.W.2d 825, 826 (1993) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 296, 304 (1932)). 1994Craig v. State, 314 Ark. 585, 588 , 863 S.W.2d 825, 826 (1993) (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 296, 304 (1932)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2007The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Blockburger analysis in United States v. Dixon, [ 509 U.S. 688 (1993)], therein denouncing the “same conduct” test. 2007The Supreme Court reaffirmed the Blockburger analysis in United States v. Dixon, [ 509 U.S. 688 (1993)], therein denouncing the “same conduct” test. | 4 | 1994–2007 |
Grady v. Corbin
red
2 sentences2002In Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), the Supreme Court held that, in addition to passing the Blockburger test, a subsequent prosecution must satisfy a “same-conduct” test to avoid the double jeopardy bar. 2002In Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 (1990), the Supreme Court held that, in addition to passing the Blockburger test, a subsequent prosecution must satisfy a “same-conduct” test to avoid the double jeopardy bar. | 3 | 1994–2002 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
2 sentences2007The Court stated in Dixon: The collateral estoppel effect attributed to the Double Jeopardy Clause, see Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), may bar a later prosecution for a separate offense where the Government has lost an earlier prosecution involving the same facts. 2007The Court stated in Dixon: The collateral estoppel effect attributed to the Double Jeopardy Clause, see Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), may bar a later prosecution for a separate offense where the Government has lost an earlier prosecution involving the same facts. | 2 | 2000–2007 |
Whalen v. United States
green
2 sentences2004The Court also addressed its prior holdings in Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981), and Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980), and stated the following: Our analysis and reasoning in Whalen and Albemaz lead inescapably to the conclusion that simply because two criminal statutes may be constmed to proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test does not mean that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes. 2004The Court also addressed its prior holdings in Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981), and Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980), and stated the following: Our analysis and reasoning in Whalen and Albemaz lead inescapably to the conclusion that simply because two criminal statutes may be constmed to proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test does not mean that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes. | 2 | 2000–2004 |
Cothren v. State
green
2 sentences2014The Blockburger test has been applied by this court, see Cothron, 344 Ark. 697 , 42 S.W.3d 543 ; Craig v. State, 314 Ark. 585 , 863 S.W.2d 825 (1993), and the Arkansas General Assembly has codified this constitutional protection at Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-1-110 (Supp. 2009).4 While we agree that possession of a controlled substance is a lesser-included offense of manufacturing that substance, Craig, 314 Ark. 585 , 863 S.W.2d 825 , we disagree that appellant’s rights against double jeopardy were violated in the instant case because he has not established in the habeas petition that hi 2014The Blockburger test has been applied by this court, see Cothron, 344 Ark. 697 , 42 S.W.3d 543 ; Craig v. State, 314 Ark. 585 , 863 S.W.2d 825 (1993), and the Arkansas General Assembly has codified this constitutional protection at Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-1-110 (Supp. 2009).4 While we agree that possession of a controlled substance is a lesser-included offense of manufacturing that substance, Craig, 314 Ark. 585 , 863 S.W.2d 825 , we disagree that appellant’s rights against double jeopardy were violated in the instant case because he has not established in the habeas petition that hi | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Albernaz v. United States
green
2 sentences2004The Court also addressed its prior holdings in Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981), and Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980), and stated the following: Our analysis and reasoning in Whalen and Albemaz lead inescapably to the conclusion that simply because two criminal statutes may be constmed to proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test does not mean that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes. 2004The Court also addressed its prior holdings in Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333 (1981), and Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980), and stated the following: Our analysis and reasoning in Whalen and Albemaz lead inescapably to the conclusion that simply because two criminal statutes may be constmed to proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test does not mean that the Double Jeopardy Clause precludes the imposition, in a single trial, of cumulative punishments pursuant to those statutes. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Missouri v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2002In Missouri v. Hunter, supra, the Supreme Court held that, where a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishments under two separate statutes, regardless of whether the two statutes proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test, a court’s task of statutory construction is at an end, and a person may be punished under both statutes in a single proceeding. 2002In Missouri v. Hunter, supra, the Supreme Court held that, where a legislature specifically authorizes cumulative punishments under two separate statutes, regardless of whether the two statutes proscribe the same conduct under the Blockburger test, a court’s task of statutory construction is at an end, and a person may be punished under both statutes in a single proceeding. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Gavieres v. United States
green
2 sentences1996Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342 , and authorities cited. 1996Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342 , and authorities cited. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hall v. State
green
2 sentences1994Hall v. State, 315 Ark. 385 , 868 S.W.2d 453 (1993). 1994Hall v. State, 315 Ark. 385 , 868 S.W.2d 453 (1993). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Thornton
green
2 sentences1993In State v. Thornton, 306 Ark. 402 , 815 S.W.2d 386 (1991), this court in discussing the Blockburger test stated that if it reveals that the offenses have identical statutory elements or that one offense is a lesser included offense of the other, then the inquiry must cease, and the subsequent prosecution is barred. 1993In State v. Thornton, 306 Ark. 402 , 815 S.W.2d 386 (1991), this court in discussing the Blockburger test stated that if it reveals that the offenses have identical statutory elements or that one offense is a lesser included offense of the other, then the inquiry must cease, and the subsequent prosecution is barred. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.