Block-burger test in Michigan

2004If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Block-burger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.” Iannelli v United States, 420 US 770 , 785 n 17; 95 S Ct 1284 ; 43 L Ed 2d 616 (1975).

2004If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Block-burger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.” Iannelli v United States, 420 US 770 , 785 n 17; 95 S Ct 1284 ; 43 L Ed 2d 616 (1975).

2009People v Ream, 481 Mich 223, 238 ; 750 NW2d 536 (2008).

2009People v Ream, 481 Mich 223, 238 ; 750 NW2d 536 (2008).

2008That is, “ ‘[i]n applying the Blockburger rule, the United States Supreme Court has focused on the legal elements of the respective offenses, not on the particular factual occurrence which gives rise to the charges.’ ” Smith, 478 Mich at 309 , quoting Wayne Co Prosecutor v Recorder’s Court Judge, 406 Mich 374, 395 ; 280 NW2d 793 (1979). 13 In Iannelli v United States, 420 US 770 , 785 n 17; 95 S Ct 1284 ; 43 L Ed 2d 616 (1975), the Court held that “the [.Blockburger] test focuses on the statutory elements of the offense.” However, in Harris v Oklahoma, 433 US 682 ; 97 S Ct 2912 ; 53 L Ed 2d 10

2008That is, “ ‘[i]n applying the Blockburger rule, the United States Supreme Court has focused on the legal elements of the respective offenses, not on the particular factual occurrence which gives rise to the charges.’ ” Smith, 478 Mich at 309 , quoting Wayne Co Prosecutor v Recorder’s Court Judge, 406 Mich 374, 395 ; 280 NW2d 793 (1979). 13 In Iannelli v United States, 420 US 770 , 785 n 17; 95 S Ct 1284 ; 43 L Ed 2d 616 (1975), the Court held that “the [.Blockburger] test focuses on the statutory elements of the offense.” However, in Harris v Oklahoma, 433 US 682 ; 97 S Ct 2912 ; 53 L Ed 2d 10

2008However, as the Court in Wilder, 411 Mich at 349 n 10, acknowledged, the Block-burger test focuses on the abstract legal elements. 12 Blockburger, 284 US at 304 (concluding that there was no double-jeopardy violation because “upon the face of the statute, two distinct offenses are created”) (emphasis added).

2008However, as the Court in Wilder, 411 Mich at 349 n 10, acknowledged, the Block-burger test focuses on the abstract legal elements. 12 Blockburger, 284 US at 304 (concluding that there was no double-jeopardy violation because “upon the face of the statute, two distinct offenses are created”) (emphasis added).

2008That is, “ ‘[i]n applying the Blockburger rule, the United States Supreme Court has focused on the legal elements of the respective offenses, not on the particular factual occurrence which gives rise to the charges.’ ” Smith, 478 Mich at 309 , quoting Wayne Co Prosecutor v Recorder’s Court Judge, 406 Mich 374, 395 ; 280 NW2d 793 (1979). 13 In Iannelli v United States, 420 US 770 , 785 n 17; 95 S Ct 1284 ; 43 L Ed 2d 616 (1975), the Court held that “the [.Blockburger] test focuses on the statutory elements of the offense.” However, in Harris v Oklahoma, 433 US 682 ; 97 S Ct 2912 ; 53 L Ed 2d 10

2008That is, “ ‘[i]n applying the Blockburger rule, the United States Supreme Court has focused on the legal elements of the respective offenses, not on the particular factual occurrence which gives rise to the charges.’ ” Smith, 478 Mich at 309 , quoting Wayne Co Prosecutor v Recorder’s Court Judge, 406 Mich 374, 395 ; 280 NW2d 793 (1979). 13 In Iannelli v United States, 420 US 770 , 785 n 17; 95 S Ct 1284 ; 43 L Ed 2d 616 (1975), the Court held that “the [.Blockburger] test focuses on the statutory elements of the offense.” However, in Harris v Oklahoma, 433 US 682 ; 97 S Ct 2912 ; 53 L Ed 2d 10

2008That is, “ ‘[i]n applying the Blockburger rule, the United States Supreme Court has focused on the legal elements of the respective offenses, not on the particular factual occurrence which gives rise to the charges.’ ” Smith, 478 Mich at 309 , quoting Wayne Co Prosecutor v Recorder’s Court Judge, 406 Mich 374, 395 ; 280 NW2d 793 (1979). 13 In Iannelli v United States, 420 US 770 , 785 n 17; 95 S Ct 1284 ; 43 L Ed 2d 616 (1975), the Court held that “the [.Blockburger] test focuses on the statutory elements of the offense.” However, in Harris v Oklahoma, 433 US 682 ; 97 S Ct 2912 ; 53 L Ed 2d 10

2008That is, “ ‘[i]n applying the Blockburger rule, the United States Supreme Court has focused on the legal elements of the respective offenses, not on the particular factual occurrence which gives rise to the charges.’ ” Smith, 478 Mich at 309 , quoting Wayne Co Prosecutor v Recorder’s Court Judge, 406 Mich 374, 395 ; 280 NW2d 793 (1979). 13 In Iannelli v United States, 420 US 770 , 785 n 17; 95 S Ct 1284 ; 43 L Ed 2d 616 (1975), the Court held that “the [.Blockburger] test focuses on the statutory elements of the offense.” However, in Harris v Oklahoma, 433 US 682 ; 97 S Ct 2912 ; 53 L Ed 2d 10

2008And, in Smith, 478 Mich at 314-315 , we concluded that there is no reason to apply a different test to the “multiple punishments” strand of double jeopardy: [NJothing in the language of the constitution indicates that the ratifiers intended to give the term “same offense” a different meaning in the context of the “multiple punishments” strand of double jeopardy than it has in the context of the “successive prosecutions” strand.

2008That is, “ ‘[i]n applying the Blockburger rule, the United States Supreme Court has focused on the legal elements of the respective offenses, not on the particular factual occurrence which gives rise to the charges.’ ” Smith, 478 Mich at 309 , quoting Wayne Co Prosecutor v Recorder’s Court Judge, 406 Mich 374, 395 ; 280 NW2d 793 (1979). 13 In Iannelli v United States, 420 US 770 , 785 n 17; 95 S Ct 1284 ; 43 L Ed 2d 616 (1975), the Court held that “the [.Blockburger] test focuses on the statutory elements of the offense.” However, in Harris v Oklahoma, 433 US 682 ; 97 S Ct 2912 ; 53 L Ed 2d 10

2008Further, the concern expressed by the Court that Block-burger does not account for cognate lesser included offenses is no longer pertinent in light of People v Cornell, 466 Mich 335, 353 ; 646 NW2d 127 (2002). 13 In addition, as discussed earlier, both Wilder and Robideau rejected the Blockburger test for purposes of the “multiple punishments” strand. 10 However, in Nutt, 469 Mich at 591-592 , this Court re-adopted the Block-burger test for purposes of the “successive prosecutions” strand of double jeopardy.

2008Further, the concern expressed by the Court that Block-burger does not account for cognate lesser included offenses is no longer pertinent in light of People v Cornell, 466 Mich 335, 353 ; 646 NW2d 127 (2002). 13 In addition, as discussed earlier, both Wilder and Robideau rejected the Blockburger test for purposes of the “multiple punishments” strand. 10 However, in Nutt, 469 Mich at 591-592 , this Court re-adopted the Block-burger test for purposes of the “successive prosecutions” strand of double jeopardy.

2008Whalen v United States, 445 US 684, 688-689 ; 100 S Ct 1432 ; 63 L Ed 2d 715 (1980). 2 The Supreme Court has described the Block-burger test as a “rule of statutory construction to help determine legislative intent.” Garrett v United States, 471 US 773, 778-779 ; 105 S Ct 2407 ; 85 L Ed 2d 764 (1985).

2008Whalen v United States, 445 US 684, 688-689 ; 100 S Ct 1432 ; 63 L Ed 2d 715 (1980). 2 The Supreme Court has described the Block-burger test as a “rule of statutory construction to help determine legislative intent.” Garrett v United States, 471 US 773, 778-779 ; 105 S Ct 2407 ; 85 L Ed 2d 764 (1985).

2008Whalen v United States, 445 US 684, 688-689 ; 100 S Ct 1432 ; 63 L Ed 2d 715 (1980). 2 The Supreme Court has described the Block-burger test as a “rule of statutory construction to help determine legislative intent.” Garrett v United States, 471 US 773, 778-779 ; 105 S Ct 2407 ; 85 L Ed 2d 764 (1985).

2008Whalen v United States, 445 US 684, 688-689 ; 100 S Ct 1432 ; 63 L Ed 2d 715 (1980). 2 The Supreme Court has described the Block-burger test as a “rule of statutory construction to help determine legislative intent.” Garrett v United States, 471 US 773, 778-779 ; 105 S Ct 2407 ; 85 L Ed 2d 764 (1985).

2007Robideau, 419 Mich at 473, 478 , citing Gore v United States, 357 US 386 ; 78 S Ct 1280 ; 2 L Ed 2d 1405 (1958) (stressing that Blockburger was decided as a matter of legislative intent), and Albernaz, 450 US at 338 (noting that the Blockburger test was merely a means to determine legislative intent and that the presumption created by the Blockburger test could be rebutted by a clear indication of legislative intent to the contrary).

2007Robideau, 419 Mich at 473, 478 , citing Gore v United States, 357 US 386 ; 78 S Ct 1280 ; 2 L Ed 2d 1405 (1958) (stressing that Blockburger was decided as a matter of legislative intent), and Albernaz, 450 US at 338 (noting that the Blockburger test was merely a means to determine legislative intent and that the presumption created by the Blockburger test could be rebutted by a clear indication of legislative intent to the contrary).

2004As stated in Albernaz v United States, 450 US 333, 340 ; 101 S Ct 1137 ; 67 L Ed 2d 275 (1981), “The 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.” Further, in In re Nielsen, 131 US 176, 187 ; 9 S Ct 672 ; 33 L Ed 118 (1889), a conviction for unlawful cohabitation precluded a subsequent charge of adultery because the incident occurred during the same two and a half year period as that for unlawful cohab

2004As stated in Albernaz v United States, 450 US 333, 340 ; 101 S Ct 1137 ; 67 L Ed 2d 275 (1981), “The 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.” Further, in In re Nielsen, 131 US 176, 187 ; 9 S Ct 672 ; 33 L Ed 118 (1889), a conviction for unlawful cohabitation precluded a subsequent charge of adultery because the incident occurred during the same two and a half year period as that for unlawful cohab

2004As stated in Albernaz v United States, 450 US 333, 340 ; 101 S Ct 1137 ; 67 L Ed 2d 275 (1981), “The 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.” Further, in In re Nielsen, 131 US 176, 187 ; 9 S Ct 672 ; 33 L Ed 118 (1889), a conviction for unlawful cohabitation precluded a subsequent charge of adultery because the incident occurred during the same two and a half year period as that for unlawful cohab

2004As stated in Albernaz v United States, 450 US 333, 340 ; 101 S Ct 1137 ; 67 L Ed 2d 275 (1981), “The 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.” Further, in In re Nielsen, 131 US 176, 187 ; 9 S Ct 672 ; 33 L Ed 118 (1889), a conviction for unlawful cohabitation precluded a subsequent charge of adultery because the incident occurred during the same two and a half year period as that for unlawful cohab

2004Accordingly, “since a legislature may specifically authorize penalties for what would otherwise be the ‘same offense,’ cumulative punishment of the same conduct under two different statutes in a single trial does not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause in either the federal or state system.” Sturgis, supra at 403 .

2004Accordingly, “since a legislature may specifically authorize penalties for what would otherwise be the ‘same offense,’ cumulative punishment of the same conduct under two different statutes in a single trial does not run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause in either the federal or state system.” Sturgis, supra at 403 .

1983People v Alvin Carter, 415 Mich 558, 578 ; 330 NW2d 314 (1982).

1983People v Alvin Carter, 415 Mich 558, 578 ; 330 NW2d 314 (1982).