Blockburger test in Maryland

2019Twigg v. State , 447 Md. 1 , 13, 133 A.3d 1125 , 1133 (2016) (citation omitted). 5 The term "Blockburger test" comes from Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). 6 In Maryland, there once existed a crime called "assault with the intent to rob," or "assault with intent to rob." Assault with the intent to rob had three elements: "(1) an assault on [a] victim; (2) made by the [defendant]; (3) with the intent to rob." Christian v. State , 405 Md. 306 , 316 n.6, 951 A.2d 832 , 838 n.6 (2008) (citation omitted).

2019Twigg v. State , 447 Md. 1 , 13, 133 A.3d 1125 , 1133 (2016) (citation omitted). 5 The term "Blockburger test" comes from Blockburger v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). 6 In Maryland, there once existed a crime called "assault with the intent to rob," or "assault with intent to rob." Assault with the intent to rob had three elements: "(1) an assault on [a] victim; (2) made by the [defendant]; (3) with the intent to rob." Christian v. State , 405 Md. 306 , 316 n.6, 951 A.2d 832 , 838 n.6 (2008) (citation omitted).

2014As an initial matter, the Court reviewed the Blockburger test, labeling it a “rule of statutory construction ... to be used to determine whether Congress has in a given situation provided that two statutory offenses may be punished cumulatively.” Id. at 337 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 (internal quotations omitted).

2014As an initial matter, the Court reviewed the Blockburger test, labeling it a “rule of statutory construction ... to be used to determine whether Congress has in a given situation provided that two statutory offenses may be punished cumulatively.” Id. at 337 , 101 S.Ct. 1137 (internal quotations omitted).

2004The Hunter Court repeated the notion that “simply because two criminal statutes may be construed 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.” 459 U.S. at 368-69 , 103 S.Ct. 673 .

2004The Hunter Court repeated the notion that “simply because two criminal statutes may be construed 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.” 459 U.S. at 368-69 , 103 S.Ct. 673 .

2001In Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 323-24 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989), Judge McAuliffe, writing for this Court, cited Missouri v. Hunter, supra, together with Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 343-44 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1144-45 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), and Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980), for the proposition that [t]he Blockburger rule does not provide the final answer in cases involving multiple punishment because, when specifically authorized by the Legislature, cumulative sentences for the same offense may under some circumstances be i

2001In Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 323-24 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989), Judge McAuliffe, writing for this Court, cited Missouri v. Hunter, supra, together with Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 343-44 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1144-45 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), and Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980), for the proposition that [t]he Blockburger rule does not provide the final answer in cases involving multiple punishment because, when specifically authorized by the Legislature, cumulative sentences for the same offense may under some circumstances be i

2014In Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), the Supreme Court explained that a lesser-included offense, which requires no more proof than that required for conviction of a greater-inclusive offense, is the “same offense” as the greater-inclusive offense by application of the Blockburger test.

2014In Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), the Supreme Court explained that a lesser-included offense, which requires no more proof than that required for conviction of a greater-inclusive offense, is the “same offense” as the greater-inclusive offense by application of the Blockburger test.

1995He reasoned that robbery and premeditated murder are not the same offense under the Blockburger test: “It is equally well-established, however, that a felony such as robbery, rape, or kidnapping, and a wilful, deliberate and premeditated murder (or any species of murder other than felony murder), both arising out of the same transaction, are not deemed the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.” Whittlesey I, 326 Md. at 537 , 606 A.2d at 242 (Eldridge, J., concurring and dissenting), citing, among others, State v. Frye, 283 Md. 709, 716 , 393 A.2d 1372, 1376 (1978), Newton v. State, 280 Md

1995He reasoned that robbery and premeditated murder are not the same offense under the Blockburger test: “It is equally well-established, however, that a felony such as robbery, rape, or kidnapping, and a wilful, deliberate and premeditated murder (or any species of murder other than felony murder), both arising out of the same transaction, are not deemed the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.” Whittlesey I, 326 Md. at 537 , 606 A.2d at 242 (Eldridge, J., concurring and dissenting), citing, among others, State v. Frye, 283 Md. 709, 716 , 393 A.2d 1372, 1376 (1978), Newton v. State, 280 Md

2020Therefore, if offenses are required to merge according 3 While the Blockburger test is the most well-known phrase used for the test in determining whether sentences arising out of the same offense, the “required evidence test” was first fashioned through Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433 (1871) and was adopted by the Supreme Court in Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 (1911).

2020Therefore, if offenses are required to merge according 3 While the Blockburger test is the most well-known phrase used for the test in determining whether sentences arising out of the same offense, the “required evidence test” was first fashioned through Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433 (1871) and was adopted by the Supreme Court in Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 (1911).

2022See State v. Wilson, 471 Md. 136, 178-79 , 240 A.3d 1140, 1164 (2020).21 21 In Wilson, 471 Md. at 178-79 , 240 A.3d at 1164 , we explained the required evidence test, stating: Under the required evidence test—also known as the same evidence test, Blockburger test, or elements test—Crime A is a lesser-included offense of Crime B where all of the elements of Crime A are included in Crime B, so that only Crime B contains a distinct element.

2022See State v. Wilson, 471 Md. 136, 178-79 , 240 A.3d 1140, 1164 (2020).21 21 In Wilson, 471 Md. at 178-79 , 240 A.3d at 1164 , we explained the required evidence test, stating: Under the required evidence test—also known as the same evidence test, Blockburger test, or elements test—Crime A is a lesser-included offense of Crime B where all of the elements of Crime A are included in Crime B, so that only Crime B contains a distinct element.

2019Under "the 'required evidence test' "-"also known as the 'same evidence test,' 'Blockburger test,' [ 5 ] or 'elements test' "-Crime A is a lesser-included offense of Crime B where "all of the elements of [Crime A] are included in [Crime B], so that only [Crime B] contains a distinct element[.]" Abeokuto v. State , 391 Md. 289 , 353, 893 A.2d 1018 , 1055 (2006) (citation omitted).

2019Under "the 'required evidence test' "-"also known as the 'same evidence test,' 'Blockburger test,' [ 5 ] or 'elements test' "-Crime A is a lesser-included offense of Crime B where "all of the elements of [Crime A] are included in [Crime B], so that only [Crime B] contains a distinct element[.]" Abeokuto v. State , 391 Md. 289 , 353, 893 A.2d 1018 , 1055 (2006) (citation omitted).

1995He reasoned that robbery and premeditated murder are not the same offense under the Blockburger test: “It is equally well-established, however, that a felony such as robbery, rape, or kidnapping, and a wilful, deliberate and premeditated murder (or any species of murder other than felony murder), both arising out of the same transaction, are not deemed the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.” Whittlesey I, 326 Md. at 537 , 606 A.2d at 242 (Eldridge, J., concurring and dissenting), citing, among others, State v. Frye, 283 Md. 709, 716 , 393 A.2d 1372, 1376 (1978), Newton v. State, 280 Md

1995He reasoned that robbery and premeditated murder are not the same offense under the Blockburger test: “It is equally well-established, however, that a felony such as robbery, rape, or kidnapping, and a wilful, deliberate and premeditated murder (or any species of murder other than felony murder), both arising out of the same transaction, are not deemed the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.” Whittlesey I, 326 Md. at 537 , 606 A.2d at 242 (Eldridge, J., concurring and dissenting), citing, among others, State v. Frye, 283 Md. 709, 716 , 393 A.2d 1372, 1376 (1978), Newton v. State, 280 Md

2020Therefore, if offenses are required to merge according 3 While the Blockburger test is the most well-known phrase used for the test in determining whether sentences arising out of the same offense, the “required evidence test” was first fashioned through Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433 (1871) and was adopted by the Supreme Court in Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 (1911).

2020Therefore, if offenses are required to merge according 3 While the Blockburger test is the most well-known phrase used for the test in determining whether sentences arising out of the same offense, the “required evidence test” was first fashioned through Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433 (1871) and was adopted by the Supreme Court in Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338 (1911).

2017State v. Ferrell, 313 Md. 291, 298 , 545 A.2d 653, 656 (1988).

2017State v. Ferrell, 313 Md. 291, 298 , 545 A.2d 653, 656 (1988).

2011The Court of Appeals summarized the required evidence test in State v. Lancaster, 332 Md. 385, 391-92 , 631 A.2d 453 (1993): The required evidence test focuses upon the elements of each offense; if all of the elements of one offense are included in the other offense, so that only the latter offense contains a distinct element or distinct elements, the former merges into the latter.

2011The Court of Appeals summarized the required evidence test in State v. Lancaster, 332 Md. 385, 391-92 , 631 A.2d 453 (1993): The required evidence test focuses upon the elements of each offense; if all of the elements of one offense are included in the other offense, so that only the latter offense contains a distinct element or distinct elements, the former merges into the latter.

2005See also Gianiny, 320 Md. at 340-41 , 577 A.2d 795 (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. at 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 ) (“A lesser included offense, one which requires no proof beyond that which is required for conviction of the greater offense, is the same statutory offense as the greater offense under the Blockburger test.

2005See also Gianiny, 320 Md. at 340-41 , 577 A.2d 795 (quoting Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. at 166 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 ) (“A lesser included offense, one which requires no proof beyond that which is required for conviction of the greater offense, is the same statutory offense as the greater offense under the Blockburger test.

2001In Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 323-24 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989), Judge McAuliffe, writing for this Court, cited Missouri v. Hunter, supra, together with Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 343-44 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1144-45 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), and Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980), for the proposition that [t]he Blockburger rule does not provide the final answer in cases involving multiple punishment because, when specifically authorized by the Legislature, cumulative sentences for the same offense may under some circumstances be i

2001In Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315, 323-24 , 558 A.2d 715 (1989), Judge McAuliffe, writing for this Court, cited Missouri v. Hunter, supra, together with Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 343-44 , 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1144-45 , 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981), and Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980), for the proposition that [t]he Blockburger rule does not provide the final answer in cases involving multiple punishment because, when specifically authorized by the Legislature, cumulative sentences for the same offense may under some circumstances be i

1990In Jenkins we explained that [t]he normal test for determining whether one offense merges into another is the so-called “same evidence test” or “required evidence test” or, as it is often labeled, the “Blockburger test.” This test focuses upon the elements of each offense; if all of the elements of one offense are included in the other offense, so that only the latter offense contains a distinct element or distinct elements, the former merges into the latter. 307 Md. at 517 , 515 A.2d at 473 (footnote omitted).

1990In Jenkins we explained that [t]he normal test for determining whether one offense merges into another is the so-called “same evidence test” or “required evidence test” or, as it is often labeled, the “Blockburger test.” This test focuses upon the elements of each offense; if all of the elements of one offense are included in the other offense, so that only the latter offense contains a distinct element or distinct elements, the former merges into the latter. 307 Md. at 517 , 515 A.2d at 473 (footnote omitted).

1990In Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980), the Supreme Court suggested, and in Grady v. Corbin, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), it held that the *342 Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution that would not be barred under the Blockburger test if the government, in order to establish an essential element of the subsequently charged offense, will prove the conduct for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.

1990In Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410 , 100 S.Ct. 2260 , 65 L.Ed.2d 228 (1980), the Supreme Court suggested, and in Grady v. Corbin, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2084 , 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), it held that the *342 Double Jeopardy Clause bars a subsequent prosecution that would not be barred under the Blockburger test if the government, in order to establish an essential element of the subsequently charged offense, will prove the conduct for which the defendant has already been prosecuted.

2018See Johnson v. State , 427 Md. 356 , 376 n.12, 47 A.3d 1002 (2012) (citing Hagans v. State , 316 Md. 429 , 447-50, 559 A.2d 792 (1989) for the proposition that a defendant may be convicted of an uncharged lesser included offense but only if it meets the Blockburger test).

2018See Johnson v. State , 427 Md. 356 , 376 n.12, 47 A.3d 1002 (2012) (citing Hagans v. State , 316 Md. 429 , 447-50, 559 A.2d 792 (1989) for the proposition that a defendant may be convicted of an uncharged lesser included offense but only if it meets the Blockburger test).

2014See, e.g., Frazier v. State, 318 Md. 597, 613-14 , 569 A.2d 684 (1990) (noting that clear legislative intent mandating separate punishments is dispositive of the Blockburger test). 4 .

2014See, e.g., Frazier v. State, 318 Md. 597, 613-14 , 569 A.2d 684 (1990) (noting that clear legislative intent mandating separate punishments is dispositive of the Blockburger test). 4 .

2011To determine whether one offense merges into another, we utilize what is most often called the “required evidence test,” McGrath v. State, 356 Md. 20, 23 , 736 A.2d 1067 (1999) (citations omitted), also known as the *557 “same evidence test,” the “Blockburger test,” or the “elements test.” Dixon, 364 Md. at 237 , 772 A.2d 283 .

2011To determine whether one offense merges into another, we utilize what is most often called the “required evidence test,” McGrath v. State, 356 Md. 20, 23 , 736 A.2d 1067 (1999) (citations omitted), also known as the *557 “same evidence test,” the “Blockburger test,” or the “elements test.” Dixon, 364 Md. at 237 , 772 A.2d 283 .

2008As a consequence, “the two offenses ‘are deemed the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.’ ” 385 Md. at 132 , 867 A.2d 1040 (quoting State v. Woodson, 338 Md. 322, 329 , 658 A.2d 272 (1995)).

2008As a consequence, “the two offenses ‘are deemed the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.’ ” 385 Md. at 132 , 867 A.2d 1040 (quoting State v. Woodson, 338 Md. 322, 329 , 658 A.2d 272 (1995)).

1993In Whack v. State, 288 Md. 137, 149 , 416 A.2d 265, 271 (1980), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 450 U.S. 990 , 101 S.Ct. 1688 , 68 L.Ed.2d 189 (1981), this Court, following the legislature's intent, sustained separate convictions and sentences for use of a handgun in the commission of a felony and for the underlying felony (armed robbery) despite the fact that the two violations would be deemed the same offense under the Blockburger test.

1993In Whack v. State, 288 Md. 137, 149 , 416 A.2d 265, 271 (1980), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 450 U.S. 990 , 101 S.Ct. 1688 , 68 L.Ed.2d 189 (1981), this Court, following the legislature's intent, sustained separate convictions and sentences for use of a handgun in the commission of a felony and for the underlying felony (armed robbery) despite the fact that the two violations would be deemed the same offense under the Blockburger test.