Blockburger test in Kentucky

2025Under that test, “[d]ouble jeopardy does not occur when a person is charged with two crimes arising from the same course of conduct, as long as each statute ‘requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.’” Id. at 809 (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304); see also KRS 505.020(1)(a) and (2)(a) (codifying the Blockburger test).

2025Under that test, “[d]ouble jeopardy does not occur when a person is charged with two crimes arising from the same course of conduct, as long as each statute ‘requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.’” Id. at 809 (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304); see also KRS 505.020(1)(a) and (2)(a) (codifying the Blockburger test).

2022Convictions for both first-degree wanton endangerment and first-degree unlawful imprisonment are not violative of the double jeopardy clause under 4 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). 11 the Blockburger test.

2022Convictions for both first-degree wanton endangerment and first-degree unlawful imprisonment are not violative of the double jeopardy clause under 4 Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). 11 the Blockburger test.

2023Kiper v. Commonwealth, 399 S.W.3d 736, 742 (Ky. 2012).

2018See Kiper v. Commonwealth, 399 S.W.3d. 736, 741 (Ky. 2012) (while Blockburger test will most often be controlling analysis, it is not the exclusive method for evaluating potential double jeopardy violation).

2012In determining whether a person may be prosecuted “for multiple offenses based upon one act, courts use two main guideposts— the Blockburger test and the expressed intent of the legislature.” Lloyd v. Commonwealth, 324 S.W.3d 384, 387 (Ky.2010); see also Beaty, 125 S.W.3d at 210 (“Our rule against multiple prosecutions for the same course of conduct parallels the federal rule announced in Blockburger[.]”).

2012In determining whether a person may be prosecuted “for multiple offenses based upon one act, courts use two main guideposts— the Blockburger test and the expressed intent of the legislature.” Lloyd v. Commonwealth, 324 S.W.3d 384, 387 (Ky.2010); see also Beaty, 125 S.W.3d at 210 (“Our rule against multiple prosecutions for the same course of conduct parallels the federal rule announced in Blockburger[.]”).

2012See, e.g., Taylor v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Ky.1999) ("In Commonwealth v. Burge, we reinstated the 'Blockburger rule’ as incorporated in KRS 505.020, as the sole basis for determining whether multiple convictions arising out of a single course of conduct constitutes double jeopardy.”) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390, 399 (Ky.2001) ("In Burge , we departed from the so-called 'same conduct’ test described in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), ... and reinstated the Blockburger rule 'as the sole basis for

2012See, e.g., Taylor v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Ky.1999) ("In Commonwealth v. Burge, we reinstated the 'Blockburger rule’ as incorporated in KRS 505.020, as the sole basis for determining whether multiple convictions arising out of a single course of conduct constitutes double jeopardy.”) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390, 399 (Ky.2001) ("In Burge , we departed from the so-called 'same conduct’ test described in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), ... and reinstated the Blockburger rule 'as the sole basis for

2012See, e.g., Taylor v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Ky.1999) ("In Commonwealth v. Burge, we reinstated the 'Blockburger rule’ as incorporated in KRS 505.020, as the sole basis for determining whether multiple convictions arising out of a single course of conduct constitutes double jeopardy.”) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390, 399 (Ky.2001) ("In Burge , we departed from the so-called 'same conduct’ test described in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), ... and reinstated the Blockburger rule 'as the sole basis for

2012See, e.g., Taylor v. Commonwealth, 995 S.W.2d 355, 358 (Ky.1999) ("In Commonwealth v. Burge, we reinstated the 'Blockburger rule’ as incorporated in KRS 505.020, as the sole basis for determining whether multiple convictions arising out of a single course of conduct constitutes double jeopardy.”) (emphasis added) (citations omitted); Barth v. Commonwealth, 80 S.W.3d 390, 399 (Ky.2001) ("In Burge , we departed from the so-called 'same conduct’ test described in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), ... and reinstated the Blockburger rule 'as the sole basis for

2019Under the Blockburger test, “[a] defendant is put in double jeopardy when he is convicted of two crimes with identical elements, or where one is simply a lesser-included offense of the other.” Turner v. Commonwealth, 345 S.W.3d 844, 847 (Ky. 2011).

2019Under the Blockburger test, “[a] defendant is put in double jeopardy when he is convicted of two crimes with identical elements, or where one is simply a lesser-included offense of the other.” Turner v. Commonwealth, 345 S.W.3d 844, 847 (Ky. 2011).

2014Mack v. Commonwealth, 136 S.W.3d 434, 438 (Ky.2004) citing Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 416 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980).

2014Mack v. Commonwealth, 136 S.W.3d 434, 438 (Ky.2004) citing Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 416 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980).

2011See also Dixon v. Commonwealth, 263 S.W.3d 583, 588 (Ky.2008) ("Although we once departed from using the Blockburger test, the resulting confusion moved us to state emphatically [in Burge ] that we would 'henceforth' rely upon Blockburger to resolve double jeopardy claims.”). 8 . 108 F.3d 677 (6th Cir.1997). 9 .

2011See also Dixon v. Commonwealth, 263 S.W.3d 583, 588 (Ky.2008) ("Although we once departed from using the Blockburger test, the resulting confusion moved us to state emphatically [in Burge ] that we would 'henceforth' rely upon Blockburger to resolve double jeopardy claims.”). 8 . 108 F.3d 677 (6th Cir.1997). 9 .

2008The sum of the damage caused is precisely what determines the degree of the offense, and for that reason is a true element that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (footnote omitted); United States v. Pérez-González, 445 F.3d 39, 45 (1st Cir.2006) ("Pérez-González asserts that the legislative intent with regard to the joint application of the two statutes is ambiguous and proceeds to a Blockburger analysis.

2008The sum of the damage caused is precisely what determines the degree of the offense, and for that reason is a true element that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (footnote omitted); United States v. Pérez-González, 445 F.3d 39, 45 (1st Cir.2006) ("Pérez-González asserts that the legislative intent with regard to the joint application of the two statutes is ambiguous and proceeds to a Blockburger analysis.

1997Eldred v. Commonwealth, Ky., 906 S.W.2d 694, 707 (1995).

1997Eldred v. Commonwealth, Ky., 906 S.W.2d 694, 707 (1995).

2009So long as “each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, the offenses are not the same under the Blockburger test.” See Vitale, 447 U.S. at 416 , 100 S.Ct. at 2265 (internal citations omitted).

2009So long as “each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, the offenses are not the same under the Blockburger test.” See Vitale, 447 U.S. at 416 , 100 S.Ct. at 2265 (internal citations omitted).

2012In determining whether a person may be prosecuted “for multiple offenses based upon one act, courts use two main guideposts— the Blockburger test and the expressed intent of the legislature.” Lloyd v. Commonwealth, 324 S.W.3d 384, 387 (Ky.2010); see also Beaty, 125 S.W.3d at 210 (“Our rule against multiple prosecutions for the same course of conduct parallels the federal rule announced in Blockburger[.]”).

2012In determining whether a person may be prosecuted “for multiple offenses based upon one act, courts use two main guideposts— the Blockburger test and the expressed intent of the legislature.” Lloyd v. Commonwealth, 324 S.W.3d 384, 387 (Ky.2010); see also Beaty, 125 S.W.3d at 210 (“Our rule against multiple prosecutions for the same course of conduct parallels the federal rule announced in Blockburger[.]”).

1990Quoting the venerable Blockburger rule and KRS 505.-020, we held that the defendant might be convicted of both rape in the first degree and assault in the second degree, since neither offense is included in the other. 7 Then, in Jones v. Commonwealth, Ky., 756 S.W.2d 462 (1988), we again abandoned strict adherence to the traditional “different facts” test.

1990Quoting the venerable Blockburger rule and KRS 505.-020, we held that the defendant might be convicted of both rape in the first degree and assault in the second degree, since neither offense is included in the other. 7 Then, in Jones v. Commonwealth, Ky., 756 S.W.2d 462 (1988), we again abandoned strict adherence to the traditional “different facts” test.

2012Clark, 267 S.W.3d at 675 ; see also KRS 505.020 (codifying the Blockburger test).

2012Clark, 267 S.W.3d at 675 ; see also KRS 505.020 (codifying the Blockburger test).

2018Summarizing the Blockburger analysis described above, "[t]he test for determining whether a defendant can be convicted of more than one crime arising out .of a single act is whether each charge requires proof of a fact that the other does not." Johnson v. Commonwealth, 292 S.W.3d 889, 897 (Ky. 2009) (citing Blockburger, 284 15 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. 182 ).

2018Summarizing the Blockburger analysis described above, "[t]he test for determining whether a defendant can be convicted of more than one crime arising out .of a single act is whether each charge requires proof of a fact that the other does not." Johnson v. Commonwealth, 292 S.W.3d 889, 897 (Ky. 2009) (citing Blockburger, 284 15 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. 182 ).

1996The Jordan court once again cited the Blockburger rule as defining the law as it applies in Kentucky, noting that “the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and § 13 of the Kentucky Constitution are identical in the import of their prohibition against double jeopardy.” Jordan, 703 S.W.2d at 872 .

1996The Jordan court once again cited the Blockburger rule as defining the law as it applies in Kentucky, noting that “the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and § 13 of the Kentucky Constitution are identical in the import of their prohibition against double jeopardy.” Jordan, 703 S.W.2d at 872 .

2026Hennemeyer, 580 S.W.2d at 214 . -10- fleeing and evading count, our Supreme Court found it appropriate, under the Blockburger analysis, to dismiss Brown’s two misdemeanor wanton endangerment convictions.

2026Hennemeyer, 580 S.W.2d at 214 . -10- fleeing and evading count, our Supreme Court found it appropriate, under the Blockburger analysis, to dismiss Brown’s two misdemeanor wanton endangerment convictions.

2008An offense is so included when: (a) It is established by proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged.... 19 .Polk v. Commonwealth, 679 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Ky.1984) ("This statute [KRS 505.020] is simply a codification of the rule laid down in Blockburger v. United States ....”); Beaty v. Commonwealth, 125 S.W.3d 196, 210 (Ky.2003) (finding that KRS 505.020 was codification of Blockburger test). 20 .

1989It is now well-recognized that this “Blockburger rule” focuses on “the proof necessary to prove the statutory elements of each offense, rather than on the actual evidence at trial.” Illinois v, Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 416 , 100 S.Ct. 2260, 2265 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n. 17, 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 1293 n. 17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); Polk, 679 S.W.2d at 233 ; see also Hunt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 338 S.W.2d 912, 914 (1960).

2001In Burge , we departed from the so-called “same conduct” test described in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), overruled, United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), and in Walden v. Commonwealth, Ky., 805 S.W.2d 102, 106 (1991), overruled, Commonwealth v. Burge, supra, and reinstated the Blockburger rule “as the sole basis for determining whether multiple convictions arising out of a single course of conduct constitutes double jeopardy.” Taylor v. Commonwealth, Ky., 995 S.W.2d 355, 358 (1999).

2001In Burge , we departed from the so-called “same conduct” test described in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508 , 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), overruled, United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 , 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), and in Walden v. Commonwealth, Ky., 805 S.W.2d 102, 106 (1991), overruled, Commonwealth v. Burge, supra, and reinstated the Blockburger rule “as the sole basis for determining whether multiple convictions arising out of a single course of conduct constitutes double jeopardy.” Taylor v. Commonwealth, Ky., 995 S.W.2d 355, 358 (1999).

1989It is now well-recognized that this “Blockburger rule” focuses on “the proof necessary to prove the statutory elements of each offense, rather than on the actual evidence at trial.” Illinois v, Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 416 , 100 S.Ct. 2260, 2265 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221, 2225 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977); Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n. 17, 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 1293 n. 17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975); Polk, 679 S.W.2d at 233 ; see also Hunt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 338 S.W.2d 912, 914 (1960).

1984In applying the “Blockburger rule” the Supreme Court has made it clear that the test focuses on “the proof necessary to prove the statutory elements of each offense, rather than on the actual evidence presented at trial.” Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, at 416 , 100 S.Ct. 2260, at 2265 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (emphasis added), see also, Hunt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 338 S.W.2d 912 (1960).

2025If the legislature wants to impose multiple punishment for the same offense, it may do so.” Yates, 539 S.W.3d at 666 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2025If the legislature wants to impose multiple punishment for the same offense, it may do so.” Yates, 539 S.W.3d at 666 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2023So the test can be satisfied despite substantial overlap in the evidence used to prove the offenses.” Fagan v. Commonwealth, 374 S.W.3d 274, 277 (Ky. 2012) (internal quotation marks, citations, and footnotes omitted) (italics in original).

2023So the test can be satisfied despite substantial overlap in the evidence used to prove the offenses.” Fagan v. Commonwealth, 374 S.W.3d 274, 277 (Ky. 2012) (internal quotation marks, citations, and footnotes omitted) (italics in original).

2022Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19, 40 (Ky. 2011).

2022Quisenberry v. Commonwealth, 336 S.W.3d 19, 40 (Ky. 2011).

2018"If the legislature wants to impose multiple . punishment for the same offense, it rriay do so." McNeil v. Commonwealth, 468 S.W.3d 858, 866-67 (Ky. 2015) (citing Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 (1985)).

2018"If the legislature wants to impose multiple . punishment for the same offense, it rriay do so." McNeil v. Commonwealth, 468 S.W.3d 858, 866-67 (Ky. 2015) (citing Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773 (1985)).