Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1931

Blockburger v. United States

284 U.S. 299 | 52 S. Ct. 180 | 76 L. Ed. 306 | 1932 U.S. LEXIS 875

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case established the Blockburger same-elements test: separate punishments are generally permitted when each statutory offense requires proof of an element the other does not.

Background

Blockburger was indicted under the Harrison Narcotic Act on five counts and was convicted on the second, third, and fifth counts. Each count concerned a sale of morphine hydrochloride to the same buyer. Count two alleged a sale of ten grains on one day outside an original stamped package. Count three alleged a sale of eight grains the next day, also outside an original stamped package. Count five charged that same second-day sale as made without the buyer's required written order.

The trial court imposed five years' imprisonment and a $2,000 fine on each count, with the prison terms to run consecutively. The court of appeals affirmed. Blockburger argued that the two sales were one continuing offense and that the single second-day sale could support only one punishment even though it violated two statutory requirements.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether two closely timed narcotics sales to the same purchaser constituted one continuing offense or two separately punishable offenses.

Holding

They constituted two distinct offenses because they were separate sales completed at different times.

Reasoning

The first transaction was complete when the first quantity of morphine was delivered. Although the buyer paid shortly afterward for more morphine, that payment initiated a new bargain, and the second sale was completed only when the additional quantity was delivered the following day.

The Harrison Narcotic Act punished individual unlawful sales; it did not make the broader course of engaging in narcotics sales the offense. Therefore, each completed sale was separately punishable even if successive sales were close in time and involved the same buyer.

The Court distinguished a genuinely continuing offense, such as unlawful cohabitation in In re Snow, from an offense committed by an isolated act. In the Court's terms, the first sale arose from one impulse and ended, while the second arose from a fresh impulse—a new bargain.

The Court analogized to Ebeling v. Morgan, where each cutting of a separate mail bag created a completed offense even though the cuts occurred in one continuous episode. Here, likewise, each unlawful sale independently completed the statutory offense.

Issue #2

Whether one narcotics sale that was both outside the original stamped package and not made pursuant to a written order could be punished under two separate provisions of the Harrison Narcotic Act.

Holding

Yes. The single sale violated two distinct statutory offenses because each provision required proof of a fact the other did not.

Reasoning

Section 1 prohibited sales not made in or from an original stamped package, while section 2 prohibited sales not made pursuant to the purchaser's written order. On their face, the provisions created separate offenses directed at different statutory requirements.

The governing test is whether each statutory provision requires proof of a fact that the other does not. A single act may violate two statutes and support separate punishment when each offense includes an element absent from the other.

A conviction under section 1 required proof that the sale was not in or from an original stamped package, but not proof that there was no written order. A conviction under section 2 required proof that the sale lacked the required written order, but not proof concerning the stamped package. Because each offense had a distinct element, two offenses occurred.

The Court rejected the argument that the Act's general penalty clause imposed only one punishment whenever a single sale violated multiple requirements. Its plain meaning made each distinct offense subject to the prescribed penalty. Any concern that cumulative punishment was too severe was for Congress or the sentencing court, not a basis for rewriting the statute.