Blockburger test in Illinois

2003“The same-elements test, sometimes referred to as the ‘Blockburger’ test, inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the ‘same offence’ and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution.” Dixon, 509 U.S. at 696 , 125 L.

2003“The same-elements test, sometimes referred to as the ‘Blockburger’ test, inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the ‘same offence’ and double jeopardy bars additional punishment and successive prosecution.” Dixon, 509 U.S. at 696 , 125 L.

1987Ed. 2d 228, 235 , 100 S. Ct. 2260, 2264-65 .) “If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.” Iannelli v. United States (1975), 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n.17, 43 L.

1987Ed. 2d 228, 235 , 100 S. Ct. 2260, 2264-65 .) “If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.” Iannelli v. United States (1975), 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n.17, 43 L.

1990Ed. 2d at 235 , 100 S. Ct. at 2265 ; People v. Mueller (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 378, 388 , 488 N.E.2d 523, 528 .) In limited circumstances, the Blockburger test has been expanded so that courts may look beyond the face of the statutes involved to the elements actually necessary to establish the charges to determine whether double jeopardy principles have been violated.

1990Ed. 2d at 235 , 100 S. Ct. at 2265 ; People v. Mueller (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 378, 388 , 488 N.E.2d 523, 528 .) In limited circumstances, the Blockburger test has been expanded so that courts may look beyond the face of the statutes involved to the elements actually necessary to establish the charges to determine whether double jeopardy principles have been violated.

1993The Supreme Court has long held that the State cannot prosecute a defendant in successive prosecutions for the same criminal act under different statutes unless each statute "requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not." ( Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 .) The Blockburger test focuses on the statutory elements of each offense. ( People v. Hoskinson (1990), 201 Ill.App.3d 411, 412 , 147 Ill.Dec. 11 , 559 N.E.2d 11 .) Blockburger prohibits a second prosecution for the same criminal act if one offense has identical

1993The Supreme Court has long held that the State cannot prosecute a defendant in successive prosecutions for the same criminal act under different statutes unless each statute "requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not." ( Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 .) The Blockburger test focuses on the statutory elements of each offense. ( People v. Hoskinson (1990), 201 Ill.App.3d 411, 412 , 147 Ill.Dec. 11 , 559 N.E.2d 11 .) Blockburger prohibits a second prosecution for the same criminal act if one offense has identical

2008Wilson, 121 Nev. at 359 , 114 P.3d at 294-95 .

2008Wilson, 121 Nev. at 359 , 114 P.3d at 294-95 .

1996Ed. 2d 1054, 1056 , 97 S. Ct. 2912, 2913 ; Carrillo, 164 Ill. 2d at 147-48 .) Under the Blockburger test, then, whether the forfeitures and the criminal prosecutions constitute punishment for the same offenses depends on a comparison of the forfeiture allegations and the criminal charges.

1996Ed. 2d 1054, 1056 , 97 S. Ct. 2912, 2913 ; Carrillo, 164 Ill. 2d at 147-48 .) Under the Blockburger test, then, whether the forfeitures and the criminal prosecutions constitute punishment for the same offenses depends on a comparison of the forfeiture allegations and the criminal charges.

2023Id. at 647 .

2023Id. at 647 .

2015Thus, the case law for the same elements test is instructive in applying the abstract elements test. ¶ 20 Applying the Blockburger rule to a consecutive sentencing issue, the Whalen Court found “Congress did not authorize consecutive sentences for rape and for a killing committed in the course of the rape” because it is not the case where “ ‘each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.’ ” Whalen, 445 U.S. at 693 (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 ).

2015Thus, the case law for the same elements test is instructive in applying the abstract elements test. ¶ 20 Applying the Blockburger rule to a consecutive sentencing issue, the Whalen Court found “Congress did not authorize consecutive sentences for rape and for a killing committed in the course of the rape” because it is not the case where “ ‘each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.’ ” Whalen, 445 U.S. at 693 (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 ).

2015The Whalen Court noted that, “[i]n the present case *** proof of rape is a necessary element of proof of the felony murder, and we are unpersuaded that this case should be treated differently from other cases in which one criminal offense requires proof of every element of another offense.” Whalen, 445 U.S. at 694 . ¶ 21 However, as the Bouchee court notes, the Blockburger rule only applies “ ‘in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Bouchee, 2011 IL App (2d) 090542, ¶ 13 , 962 N.E.2d 15 (quoting Whalen, 445 U.S. at 692 ).

2015The Whalen Court noted that, “[i]n the present case *** proof of rape is a necessary element of proof of the felony murder, and we are unpersuaded that this case should be treated differently from other cases in which one criminal offense requires proof of every element of another offense.” Whalen, 445 U.S. at 694 . ¶ 21 However, as the Bouchee court notes, the Blockburger rule only applies “ ‘in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Bouchee, 2011 IL App (2d) 090542, ¶ 13 , 962 N.E.2d 15 (quoting Whalen, 445 U.S. at 692 ).

2015The Whalen Court noted that, “[i]n the present case *** proof of rape is a necessary element of proof of the felony murder, and we are unpersuaded that this case should be treated differently from other cases in which one criminal offense requires proof of every element of another offense.” Whalen, 445 U.S. at 694 . ¶ 21 However, as the Bouchee court notes, the Blockburger rule only applies “ ‘in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Bouchee, 2011 IL App (2d) 090542, ¶ 13 , 962 N.E.2d 15 (quoting Whalen, 445 U.S. at 692 ).

2015The Whalen Court noted that, “[i]n the present case *** proof of rape is a necessary element of proof of the felony murder, and we are unpersuaded that this case should be treated differently from other cases in which one criminal offense requires proof of every element of another offense.” Whalen, 445 U.S. at 694 . ¶ 21 However, as the Bouchee court notes, the Blockburger rule only applies “ ‘in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Bouchee, 2011 IL App (2d) 090542, ¶ 13 , 962 N.E.2d 15 (quoting Whalen, 445 U.S. at 692 ).

1993Ed. 2d 548, 561, 564 , 110 S. Ct. 2084, 2090, 2093 ; People v. Stefan (1992), 146 Ill. 2d 324, 336 .) The Blockburger test entails a comparison of the statutory elements of the offenses.

1993Ed. 2d 548, 561, 564 , 110 S. Ct. 2084, 2090, 2093 ; People v. Stefan (1992), 146 Ill. 2d 324, 336 .) The Blockburger test entails a comparison of the statutory elements of the offenses.

1993App. 3d 146, 152 , 562 N.E.2d 545 ), under the Blockburger standard aggravated battery cannot be considered a lesser included offense of attempted murder because all of the elements of aggravated battery are not encompassed in the offense of attempted murder.

1993App. 3d 146, 152 , 562 N.E.2d 545 ), under the Blockburger standard aggravated battery cannot be considered a lesser included offense of attempted murder because all of the elements of aggravated battery are not encompassed in the offense of attempted murder.

1993The Supreme Court has long held that the State cannot prosecute a defendant in successive prosecutions for the same criminal act under different statutes unless each statute "requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not." ( Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 .) The Blockburger test focuses on the statutory elements of each offense. ( People v. Hoskinson (1990), 201 Ill.App.3d 411, 412 , 147 Ill.Dec. 11 , 559 N.E.2d 11 .) Blockburger prohibits a second prosecution for the same criminal act if one offense has identical

1993The Supreme Court has long held that the State cannot prosecute a defendant in successive prosecutions for the same criminal act under different statutes unless each statute "requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not." ( Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299, 304 , 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 .) The Blockburger test focuses on the statutory elements of each offense. ( People v. Hoskinson (1990), 201 Ill.App.3d 411, 412 , 147 Ill.Dec. 11 , 559 N.E.2d 11 .) Blockburger prohibits a second prosecution for the same criminal act if one offense has identical

1993V). “[T]he double jeopardy clause protects against three distinct abuses: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.” (People v. 1988 Mercury Cougar (1992), 154 Ill. 2d 27, 35 .) The Blockburger test (Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299 , 76 L.

1993V). “[T]he double jeopardy clause protects against three distinct abuses: (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.” (People v. 1988 Mercury Cougar (1992), 154 Ill. 2d 27, 35 .) The Blockburger test (Blockburger v. United States (1932), 284 U.S. 299 , 76 L.

1992Ed. 118 , 9 S. Ct. 672 , as examples where the double jeopardy clause barred subsequent prosecutions, even though application of the Blockburger test would have allowed multiple prosecutions.

1992Ed. 118 , 9 S. Ct. 672 , as examples where the double jeopardy clause barred subsequent prosecutions, even though application of the Blockburger test would have allowed multiple prosecutions.

1992In the instant case, Stefan asserts that the appellate court improperly relied upon the analysis in People v. Jackson (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 179 , which held that offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes only if they meet the Blockburger test — that is, where one of the offenses is wholly included within the other, or if one offense represents a species of lesser-included offenses as recognized in Harris v. Oklahoma (1977), 433 U.S. 682 , 53 L.

1992In the instant case, Stefan asserts that the appellate court improperly relied upon the analysis in People v. Jackson (1987), 118 Ill. 2d 179 , which held that offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes only if they meet the Blockburger test — that is, where one of the offenses is wholly included within the other, or if one offense represents a species of lesser-included offenses as recognized in Harris v. Oklahoma (1977), 433 U.S. 682 , 53 L.