Blockburger test in Alabama

2009Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see also United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) (a plurality of the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the Blockburger test as the sole criterion for judging double jeopardy claims); Seritt v. State, 647 So.2d 1 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 647 So.2d 1 (Ala.1994).

2009Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see also United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993) (a plurality of the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the Blockburger test as the sole criterion for judging double jeopardy claims); Seritt v. State, 647 So.2d 1 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 647 So.2d 1 (Ala.1994).

2009We therefore conclude • that under the Blockburger test, the appellant was properly indicted and convicted for two separate and distinct capital offenses ‘notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes,’ Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n. 17, 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 1293 n. 17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); Jackson v. State, 516 So.2d 726, 761 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), rem’d on other grounds, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986).

2009We therefore conclude • that under the Blockburger test, the appellant was properly indicted and convicted for two separate and distinct capital offenses ‘notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes,’ Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n. 17, 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 1293 n. 17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); Jackson v. State, 516 So.2d 726, 761 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), rem’d on other grounds, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986).

2024Because '[t]he Blockburger test is a "rule of statutory construction," and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.' Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 340 (emphasis added)." Hutcherson v. State, 243 So. 3d 855, 877-78 (Ala. Crim.

2017Because "[t]he Blockburger test is a 'rule of statutory construction,' and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent ." Albernaz v. United States , 450 U.S. 333 , 340, 101 S.Ct. 1137 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981) (emphasis added).

2007"In Ex parte Rice , 766 So.2d 143 , 148 (Ala. 1999), we recognized the longstanding proposition that `the Double Jeopardy Clause, as a general rule, prohibits the State from subjecting a defendant to multiple punishments for the same offense.' In Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 , 304 (1932), the United States Supreme Court stated, `[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.'

2007"In Ex parte Rice , 766 So.2d 143 , 148 (Ala. 1999), we recognized the longstanding proposition that `the Double Jeopardy Clause, as a general rule, prohibits the State from subjecting a defendant to multiple punishments for the same offense.' In Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 , 304 (1932), the United States Supreme Court stated, `[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.'

2024The Alabama Supreme Court " 'has implicitly recognized the Blockburger test as a 7 CR-2024-0013 "floor" rather a "ceiling" for "same offense" definitions.' " Hopson, 292 So. 3d at 416 (quoting King v. State, 574 So.2d 921, 931 (Ala. Crim.

2024The Alabama Supreme Court " 'has implicitly recognized the Blockburger test as a 7 CR-2024-0013 "floor" rather a "ceiling" for "same offense" definitions.' " Hopson, 292 So. 3d at 416 (quoting King v. State, 574 So.2d 921, 931 (Ala. Crim.

2018App. 1997) ('Before the double jeopardy prohibition is triggered ... it must appear ... that the crimes arose out of the same act or transaction.' (citations omitted) ), aff'd, 712 So.2d 372 (Ala. 1998) ; and State v. Thompson , 197 Conn. 67 , 72, 495 A.2d 1054 , 1058 (1985) ('An analysis of the Blockburger test involves a threshold determination of whether the offenses arose out of the "same act or transaction," and a substantive analysis of whether they contain distinct elements.').

2018App. 1997) ('Before the double jeopardy prohibition is triggered ... it must appear ... that the crimes arose out of the same act or transaction.' (citations omitted) ), aff'd, 712 So.2d 372 (Ala. 1998) ; and State v. Thompson , 197 Conn. 67 , 72, 495 A.2d 1054 , 1058 (1985) ('An analysis of the Blockburger test involves a threshold determination of whether the offenses arose out of the "same act or transaction," and a substantive analysis of whether they contain distinct elements.').

2025Under the Blockburger test, '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 19 CR-2023-0826 or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.' Id. (emphasis added)." Gholston v. State, 57 So. 3d 178, 184 (Ala. Crim.

2025Under the Blockburger test, '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 19 CR-2023-0826 or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.' Id. (emphasis added)." Gholston v. State, 57 So. 3d 178, 184 (Ala. Crim.

2024App. 2012) (quoting State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 545 (Tenn. 2012)).

2024App. 2012) (quoting State v. Watkins, 362 S.W.3d 530, 545 (Tenn. 2012)).

2014In other words, "[t]he Blockburger test turns on the statutory elements of the two offenses, not on the actual evidence that may be used by the state in proving the crimes." Childers v. State , 899 So.2d 1025 , 1028 (Ala.2004) (quoting Ex parte Wright , 477 So.2d 492 , 493 (Ala.1985) ).

2005"For purposes of double jeopardy, Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , held 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.' `The Blockburger test turns on the statutory elements *228 of the two offenses, not on the actual evidence that may be used by the state in proving the crimes.' Ex parte Wright, 477 So.2d 492, 493 (Ala.1985). `Alabama has applied the Blockburger test to deter

2010See also United States v. Schales, 546 F.3d 965, 978 (9th Cir.2008) (“The Blockburger test is implicated only ‘where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions.”’ (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 )).

2010See also United States v. Schales, 546 F.3d 965, 978 (9th Cir.2008) (“The Blockburger test is implicated only ‘where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions.”’ (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 )).

1998Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 76 L.Ed. 306 , 52 S.Ct. 180 (1932); See also United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 (1993) (a plurality of the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the Blockburger test as the sole criterion for judging double jeopardy claims); Seritt v. State, 647 So.2d 1 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 647 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1994)." Williams v. State, 710 So.2d 1276 , 1321 , (Ala.Cr.App. 1996), aff'd, Ex parte Williams, 710 So.2d 1350 (Ala. 1997) (convictions upheld for the capital offense of murder committed during the course of a robbe

1998Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 76 L.Ed. 306 , 52 S.Ct. 180 (1932); See also United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 (1993) (a plurality of the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the Blockburger test as the sole criterion for judging double jeopardy claims); Seritt v. State, 647 So.2d 1 (Ala.Cr.App.), cert. denied, 647 So.2d 1 (Ala. 1994)." Williams v. State, 710 So.2d 1276 , 1321 , (Ala.Cr.App. 1996), aff'd, Ex parte Williams, 710 So.2d 1350 (Ala. 1997) (convictions upheld for the capital offense of murder committed during the course of a robbe

2005"However, the holding in Ex parte Jordan, 486 So.2d 485, 488 (Ala.1986), is compatible with the Blockburger test.

2005"However, the holding in Ex parte Jordan, 486 So.2d 485, 488 (Ala.1986), is compatible with the Blockburger test.

2009We therefore conclude • that under the Blockburger test, the appellant was properly indicted and convicted for two separate and distinct capital offenses ‘notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes,’ Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n. 17, 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 1293 n. 17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); Jackson v. State, 516 So.2d 726, 761 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), rem’d on other grounds, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986).

2009We therefore conclude • that under the Blockburger test, the appellant was properly indicted and convicted for two separate and distinct capital offenses ‘notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes,’ Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n. 17, 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 1293 n. 17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); Jackson v. State, 516 So.2d 726, 761 (Ala.Cr.App.1985), rem’d on other grounds, 516 So.2d 768 (Ala.1986).

2010“The Blockburger test is aimed at, among other things, “‘multiple punishments imposed in a single prosecution.” ’ Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 516-17 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990) (quoting Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 778 , 105 S.Ct. 2407 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985)).

2010“The Blockburger test is aimed at, among other things, “‘multiple punishments imposed in a single prosecution.” ’ Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 516-17 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990) (quoting Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 778 , 105 S.Ct. 2407 , 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985)).

1996“The Blockburger test is not a constitutional component of the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause, Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. at 368 , 103 S.Ct. at 678 , but is merely a ‘ “rule of statutory construction,” and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.’ Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. at 679 (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. at 340 , 101 S.Ct. at 1143 (emphasis added by the Missouri v. Hunter Court).

1996“The Blockburger test is not a constitutional component of the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause, Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. at 368 , 103 S.Ct. at 678 , but is merely a ‘ “rule of statutory construction,” and because it serves as a means of discerning congressional purpose the rule should not be controlling where, for example, there is a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.’ Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. at 367 , 103 S.Ct. at 679 (quoting Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. at 340 , 101 S.Ct. at 1143 (emphasis added by the Missouri v. Hunter Court).

2025Under the Blockburger test, '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 19 CR-2023-0826 or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.' Id. (emphasis added)." Gholston v. State, 57 So. 3d 178, 184 (Ala. Crim.

2025Under the Blockburger test, '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 19 CR-2023-0826 or only one is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.' Id. (emphasis added)." Gholston v. State, 57 So. 3d 178, 184 (Ala. Crim.

1985See Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 785 , 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1293 , 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); Brown v. State, 367 So.2d 557 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 367 So.2d 559 (Ala.1979).

1985See Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 785 , 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1293 , 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); Brown v. State, 367 So.2d 557 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), cert. denied, 367 So.2d 559 (Ala.1979).