Blockburger v. United States
- Decided
- December 11, 1931
- Docket
- 374
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 10,676 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds (not yet verified) · Marzolf v. Superior Court
What later courts said
- concluding that there was no double-jeopardy violation because “upon the face of the statute, two distinct offenses are created” — People v. Ream (2008)
- concluding that there was no double- jeopardy violation because “upon the face of the statute, two distinct offenses are created” — People v. Ream (2008)
- holding that “although both sections were violated by the one sale, two offenses were committed” because each crime required proof of an element not required on the other — State v. Met (2016)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Sutherland delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner was charged with violating provisions of the Harrison Narcotic Act: c. 1, § 1, 3§ Stat. 785, as amended by c. 18, § 1006, 40 Stat. 1057, 1131,. (U. S. C., Title . 26, § 692). ,- [1] and c. 1,’ § 2, 38 Stat. 785, 786, as amended, (U. S. C., Title 26, § 696). [2]
The indictment [*301] contained five counts. The jury returned a verdict against petitioner upon the second, third and fifth counts only. Each of these counts charged a sale of morphine hydrochloride to the same purchaser. ■ The second count charged a sale on a specified day of ten grains of the drug not in or from the original stamped package; the third count charged a sale on the following day of eight grains of the drug not in or from the original stamped package; the fifth count charged the latter sale also as having been made not in pursuance of a written order of the purchaser as required by the statute.. The court sentenced petitioner to five years imprisonment and a fine of $2,000 upon each count, the terms of imprisonment to run consecutively; and this judgment was affirmed on appeal; 50 F. (2d) 795.
Cite this
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1931)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.