Blockburger test in Hawaii

1997Under the “same conduct” or “Grady” test first articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), overruled by United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), a two-step process is used to determine whether a subsequent prosecution is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause: [A] court must first apply the traditional Blockburger test.

1997Under the “same conduct” or “Grady” test first articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), overruled by United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), a two-step process is used to determine whether a subsequent prosecution is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause: [A] court must first apply the traditional Blockburger test.

2005As stated earlier herein, the Blockburger test 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 requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Lessary, 75 Haw. at 452 , 865 P.2d at 153 (quoting Blockburger, *658 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 ).

2005As stated earlier herein, the Blockburger test 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 requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Lessary, 75 Haw. at 452 , 865 P.2d at 153 (quoting Blockburger, *658 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 ).

1997Under the “same conduct” or “Grady” test first articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), overruled by United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), a two-step process is used to determine whether a subsequent prosecution is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause: [A] court must first apply the traditional Blockburger test.

1997Under the “same conduct” or “Grady” test first articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), overruled by United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), a two-step process is used to determine whether a subsequent prosecution is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause: [A] court must first apply the traditional Blockburger test.

2005As stated earlier herein, the Blockburger test 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 requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Lessary, 75 Haw. at 452 , 865 P.2d at 153 (quoting Blockburger, *658 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 ).

2005As stated earlier herein, the Blockburger test 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 requires proof of a fact which the other does not." Lessary, 75 Haw. at 452 , 865 P.2d at 153 (quoting Blockburger, *658 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180 ).

2002The ICA, relying on Mendonca and State v. Pia, 55 Haw. 14 , 514 P.2d 580 (1973), concluded that "[t]he Hawai`i test [for multiple punishments cases] thus adopts the Blockburger rule and adds thereto a requirement that the law defining each of the offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil." Id. at 103, 937 P.2d at 944 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2002The ICA, relying on Mendonca and State v. Pia, 55 Haw. 14 , 514 P.2d 580 (1973), concluded that "[t]he Hawai`i test [for multiple punishments cases] thus adopts the Blockburger rule and adds thereto a requirement that the law defining each of the offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil." Id. at 103, 937 P.2d at 944 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

1998See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 962 F.2d 923, 932 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Lanzi, 933 F.2d 824, 825-26 (10th Cir.1991). 8 .

1998See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 962 F.2d 923, 932 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Lanzi, 933 F.2d 824, 825-26 (10th Cir.1991). 8 .

2005Hence, "believing the original application of the Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause to be broader than" both the Blockburger test and the "manner in which the offenses are charged" analysis, the Indiana Supreme Court adopted both tests. [20] Id. at 53-54.

2005Hence, "believing the original application of the Indiana Double Jeopardy Clause to be broader than" both the Blockburger test and the "manner in which the offenses are charged" analysis, the Indiana Supreme Court adopted both tests. [20] Id. at 53-54.

2005Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 861 , 105 S.Ct. 1668 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985)("For purposes of applying the Blockburger test in this setting as a means of ascertaining congressional intent, `punishment' must be the equivalent of a criminal conviction and not simply the imposition of sentence.") [21] The Senate Judiciary Committee also stated that HRS § 134-6(a) "was not intended to permit charging of a separate felony for use of a firearm where the underlying felony involves a firearm and is classified as a felony for that reason alone." Sen.

2005Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 861 , 105 S.Ct. 1668 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985)("For purposes of applying the Blockburger test in this setting as a means of ascertaining congressional intent, `punishment' must be the equivalent of a criminal conviction and not simply the imposition of sentence.") [21] The Senate Judiciary Committee also stated that HRS § 134-6(a) "was not intended to permit charging of a separate felony for use of a firearm where the underlying felony involves a firearm and is classified as a felony for that reason alone." Sen.

2003In its place, our jurisdiction has "adopted the `same conduct' test set forth in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), later overruled in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), as the test to apply to successive prosecution situations under the Hawai`i Constitution's double jeopardy provision[.]" Brantley , 99 Hawai`i at 486, 56 P.3d at 1275 (Acoba, J., dissenting).

2003In its place, our jurisdiction has "adopted the `same conduct' test set forth in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), later overruled in United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), as the test to apply to successive prosecution situations under the Hawai`i Constitution's double jeopardy provision[.]" Brantley , 99 Hawai`i at 486, 56 P.3d at 1275 (Acoba, J., dissenting).

2002The ICA, relying on Mendonca and State v. Pia, 55 Haw. 14 , 514 P.2d 580 (1973), concluded that "[t]he Hawai`i test [for multiple punishments cases] thus adopts the Blockburger rule and adds thereto a requirement that the law defining each of the offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil." Id. at 103, 937 P.2d at 944 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2002The ICA, relying on Mendonca and State v. Pia, 55 Haw. 14 , 514 P.2d 580 (1973), concluded that "[t]he Hawai`i test [for multiple punishments cases] thus adopts the Blockburger rule and adds thereto a requirement that the law defining each of the offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil." Id. at 103, 937 P.2d at 944 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

1998See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 962 F.2d 923, 932 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Lanzi, 933 F.2d 824, 825-26 (10th Cir.1991). 8 .

1998See, e.g., United States v. Smith, 962 F.2d 923, 932 (9th Cir.1992); United States v. Lanzi, 933 F.2d 824, 825-26 (10th Cir.1991). 8 .

1997The Hawaii test thus *103 “adopts the Blockburger rule and adds thereto a requirement that the law defining each of the offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil.” State v. Santiago, 8 Haw.App. 535, 541 , 813 P.2d 335, 338 (1991) (citation and quotation marks omitted). c.

1997The Hawaii test thus *103 “adopts the Blockburger rule and adds thereto a requirement that the law defining each of the offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil.” State v. Santiago, 8 Haw.App. 535, 541 , 813 P.2d 335, 338 (1991) (citation and quotation marks omitted). c.

1991State v. Pia, 55 Haw. 14, 18 , 514 P.2d 580, 584 (1973); see also State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280 , 285 n.2, 711 P.2d 731 , 735 n.2 (1985).

1991State v. Pia, 55 Haw. 14, 18 , 514 P.2d 580, 584 (1973); see also State v. Mendonca, 68 Haw. 280 , 285 n.2, 711 P.2d 731 , 735 n.2 (1985).

1991The Hawaii rule adopts the Blockburger rule and adds thereto a requirement that ‘“the law defining each of the offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil.’” Pia, 55 Haw. at 18 , 514 P.2d at 584 (quoting State v. Ahuna, 52 Haw. 321, 326 , 474 P.2d 704, 707 (1970)).

1991The Hawaii rule adopts the Blockburger rule and adds thereto a requirement that ‘“the law defining each of the offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil.’” Pia, 55 Haw. at 18 , 514 P.2d at 584 (quoting State v. Ahuna, 52 Haw. 321, 326 , 474 P.2d 704, 707 (1970)).