Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018(Whalen, supra, 445 U.S. at p. 689 .) It determined Congress intended the federal courts to adhere to the test of Blockburger v. United States (1932) 284 U.S. 299, 304 (Blockburger), to wit: “ ‘[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.’ [Citations.]” (Whalen, supra, 445 U.S. at p. 691 .) The Whalen court stated: “In this case, resort to the Blockburger rule leads to the conclusion tha 2018(Whalen, supra, 445 U.S. at p. 689 .) It determined Congress intended the federal courts to adhere to the test of Blockburger v. United States (1932) 284 U.S. 299, 304 (Blockburger), to wit: “ ‘[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.’ [Citations.]” (Whalen, supra, 445 U.S. at p. 691 .) The Whalen court stated: “In this case, resort to the Blockburger rule leads to the conclusion tha | 3 | 6 |
Texas v. Cobbgreen2 sentences2020Cobb (2001) 532 U.S. 162, 173 ; see People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1082-1083 .) That said, “when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, it does encompass offenses that, even if not formally charged, would be considered the same offense under the Blockburger test.”5 (Texas v. Cobb, supra, 532 U.S. at p. 173 , italics added.) Here, the state prosecution for Pamela’s murder had not yet commenced when defendant, who was in federal custody for the unrelated money licensing charge, made the incriminating remarks to Smith. 2020Cobb (2001) 532 U.S. 162, 173 ; see People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1082-1083 .) That said, “when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, it does encompass offenses that, even if not formally charged, would be considered the same offense under the Blockburger test.”5 (Texas v. Cobb, supra, 532 U.S. at p. 173 , italics added.) Here, the state prosecution for Pamela’s murder had not yet commenced when defendant, who was in federal custody for the unrelated money licensing charge, made the incriminating remarks to Smith. | 2 | 2 |
People v. Slaytongreen2 sentences2020Cobb (2001) 532 U.S. 162, 173 ; see People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1082-1083 .) That said, “when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, it does encompass offenses that, even if not formally charged, would be considered the same offense under the Blockburger test.”5 (Texas v. Cobb, supra, 532 U.S. at p. 173 , italics added.) Here, the state prosecution for Pamela’s murder had not yet commenced when defendant, who was in federal custody for the unrelated money licensing charge, made the incriminating remarks to Smith. 2020Cobb (2001) 532 U.S. 162, 173 ; see People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1082-1083 .) That said, “when the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches, it does encompass offenses that, even if not formally charged, would be considered the same offense under the Blockburger test.”5 (Texas v. Cobb, supra, 532 U.S. at p. 173 , italics added.) Here, the state prosecution for Pamela’s murder had not yet commenced when defendant, who was in federal custody for the unrelated money licensing charge, made the incriminating remarks to Smith. | 1 | 1 |
Missouri v. Huntergreen2 sentences2014(See Missouri v. Hunter (1983) 459 U.S. 359, 368-369 [ 103 S.Ct. 673 ].) The purpose of the constitutional protection against multiple punishments under the double jeopardy clause is “to ensure that sentencing courts do not exceed, by the device of multiple punishments, the limits prescribed by the legislative branch of government, in which lies the substantive power to define crimes and prescribe punishments. [Citatition.]” (Jones v. Thomas, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 381 .) “Because the substantive power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments is vested with the 24 legislature [citation], t 2014(See Missouri v. Hunter (1983) 459 U.S. 359, 368-369 [ 103 S.Ct. 673 ].) The purpose of the constitutional protection against multiple punishments under the double jeopardy clause is “to ensure that sentencing courts do not exceed, by the device of multiple punishments, the limits prescribed by the legislative branch of government, in which lies the substantive power to define crimes and prescribe punishments. [Citatition.]” (Jones v. Thomas, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 381 .) “Because the substantive power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments is vested with the 24 legislature [citation], t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whalen v. United States
green
2 sentences2018(Whalen, supra, 445 U.S. at p. 689 .) It determined Congress intended the federal courts to adhere to the test of Blockburger v. United States (1932) 284 U.S. 299, 304 (Blockburger), to wit: “ ‘[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.’ [Citations.]” (Whalen, supra, 445 U.S. at p. 691 .) The Whalen court stated: “In this case, resort to the Blockburger rule leads to the conclusion tha 2018(Whalen, supra, 445 U.S. at p. 689 .) It determined Congress intended the federal courts to adhere to the test of Blockburger v. United States (1932) 284 U.S. 299, 304 (Blockburger), to wit: “ ‘[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.’ [Citations.]” (Whalen, supra, 445 U.S. at p. 691 .) The Whalen court stated: “In this case, resort to the Blockburger rule leads to the conclusion tha | 2 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Dixon
green
2 sentences2017These federal crimes do not constitute the "same offense" as human trafficking charges under the Blockburger test, and consequently defendants are not entitled to Fifth Amendment double jeopardy protection. 8 (See Dixon , supra , 509 U.S. at p. 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 .) All of defendants' contentions regarding the dual-sovereignty doctrine and the "sham separate sovereign" exception are moot in light of this conclusion. 9 II In addition to their double jeopardy and dual-sovereignty claims, defendants make several related constitutional and statutory arguments. 2017These federal crimes do not constitute the "same offense" as human trafficking charges under the Blockburger test, and consequently defendants are not entitled to Fifth Amendment double jeopardy protection. 8 (See Dixon , supra , 509 U.S. at p. 696 , 113 S.Ct. 2849 .) All of defendants' contentions regarding the dual-sovereignty doctrine and the "sham separate sovereign" exception are moot in light of this conclusion. 9 II In addition to their double jeopardy and dual-sovereignty claims, defendants make several related constitutional and statutory arguments. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Grady v. Corbin
red
1 sentence2017Although the Supreme Court had adopted a conduct-based approach in Grady v. Corbin (1990) 495 U.S. 508 , that decision was overruled three years later in Dixon, supra, 509 U.S. at page 704 . 7 From Blockburger v. United States (1932) 284 U.S. 299 . 11 U.S.C. §§ 206 (f), 215) constitutes the “same offense” as human trafficking under California law (§ 236.1). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jones v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2014(See Missouri v. Hunter (1983) 459 U.S. 359, 368-369 [ 103 S.Ct. 673 ].) The purpose of the constitutional protection against multiple punishments under the double jeopardy clause is “to ensure that sentencing courts do not exceed, by the device of multiple punishments, the limits prescribed by the legislative branch of government, in which lies the substantive power to define crimes and prescribe punishments. [Citatition.]” (Jones v. Thomas, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 381 .) “Because the substantive power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments is vested with the 24 legislature [citation], t 2014(See Missouri v. Hunter (1983) 459 U.S. 359, 368-369 [ 103 S.Ct. 673 ].) The purpose of the constitutional protection against multiple punishments under the double jeopardy clause is “to ensure that sentencing courts do not exceed, by the device of multiple punishments, the limits prescribed by the legislative branch of government, in which lies the substantive power to define crimes and prescribe punishments. [Citatition.]” (Jones v. Thomas, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 381 .) “Because the substantive power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments is vested with the 24 legislature [citation], t | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Seel
green
2 sentences2014(People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535, 542 .) “[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. [Citation.]” (Blockburger v. United States (1932) 284 U.S. 299, 304 [ 52 S.Ct. 180 ].) The Blockburger test nevertheless yields to contrary legislative intent to impose cumulative punishment in a single prosecution. 2014(People v. Seel (2004) 34 Cal.4th 535, 542 .) “[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. [Citation.]” (Blockburger v. United States (1932) 284 U.S. 299, 304 [ 52 S.Ct. 180 ].) The Blockburger test nevertheless yields to contrary legislative intent to impose cumulative punishment in a single prosecution. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ohio v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2014(See Missouri v. Hunter (1983) 459 U.S. 359, 368-369 [ 103 S.Ct. 673 ].) The purpose of the constitutional protection against multiple punishments under the double jeopardy clause is “to ensure that sentencing courts do not exceed, by the device of multiple punishments, the limits prescribed by the legislative branch of government, in which lies the substantive power to define crimes and prescribe punishments. [Citatition.]” (Jones v. Thomas, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 381 .) “Because the substantive power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments is vested with the 24 legislature [citation], t 2014(See Missouri v. Hunter (1983) 459 U.S. 359, 368-369 [ 103 S.Ct. 673 ].) The purpose of the constitutional protection against multiple punishments under the double jeopardy clause is “to ensure that sentencing courts do not exceed, by the device of multiple punishments, the limits prescribed by the legislative branch of government, in which lies the substantive power to define crimes and prescribe punishments. [Citatition.]” (Jones v. Thomas, supra, 491 U.S. at p. 381 .) “Because the substantive power to prescribe crimes and determine punishments is vested with the 24 legislature [citation], t | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.