Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/284/299.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:45:13+00:00

Document:
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Harry Blockburger was convicted of violating certain provisions of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act. To review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals [50 F.(2d) 795], affirming the judgment of conviction, the defendant brings certiorari.
Judgment affirmed. [284 U.S. 299, 300] Mr. Harold J. Bandy, of Granite City, Ill., for petitioner.
The petitioner was charged with violating provisions of the Harrison Narcotic Act, c. 1, 1, 38 Stat. 785, as amended by c. 18, 1006, 40 Stat. 1057, 1131 (U. S. C. Title 26, 692 [26 USCA 692]);1 and c. 1, 2, 38 Stat. 785, 786 (U. S. C., Title 26, 696 [26 USCA 696]).2 The indictment [284 U.S. 299, 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. (C. C. A.) 50 F.( 2d) 795.
The principal contentions here made by petitioner are as follows: (1) That, upon the facts, the two sales charged in the second and third counts as having been made to the same person constitute a single offense; and (2) that the sale charged in the third count as having been made not from the original stamped package, and the same sale charged in the fifth count as having been made not in pursuance of a written order of the purchaser, constitute but one offense, for which only a single penalty lawfully may be imposed.
One. The sales charged in the second and third counts, although made to the same person, were distinct and separate sales made at different times. It appears from the evidence that, shortly after delivery of the drug which was the subject of the first sale, the purchaser paid for an additional quantity, which was delivered the next day. But the first sale had been consummated, and the payment for the additional drug, however closely following, was the initiation of a separate and distinct sale completed by its delivery.
See, also, Ex parte Henry, 123 U.S. 372, 374 , 8 S. Ct. 142; Ex parte De Bara, 179 U.S. 316, 320 , 21 S. Ct. 110; Badders v. United States, 240 U.S. 391, 394 , 36 S. Ct. 367; Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 How. 89, 127; United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360 , 46 S. Ct. 156; Queen v. Scott, 4 Best & S. (Q. B.) 368, 373.
Two. Section 1 of the Narcotic Act creates the offense of selling any of the forbidden drugs except in or from the original stamped package; and section 2 creates the offense of selling any of such drugs not in pursuance of a written [284 U.S. 299, 304] order of the person to whom the drug is sold. Thus, upon the face of the statute, two distinct offenses are created. Here there was but one sale, and the question is whether, both sections being violated by the same act, the accused committed two offenses or only one.
The statute is not aimed at sales of the forbidden drugs qua sales, a matter entirely beyond the authority of Congress, but at sales of such drugs in violation of the requirements set forth in sections 1 and 2, enacted as aids to the enforcement of the stamp tax imposed by the act. See Alston v. United States, 274 U.S. 289, 294 , 47 S. Ct. 634; Nigro v. United States, 276 U.S. 332, 341 , 345 S., 351, 48 S. Ct. 388.
Each of the offenses created requires proof of a different element. The applicable rule is that, where 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 an additional fact which the other does not. Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342 , 31 S. Ct. 421, and authorities cited. In that case this court quoted from and adopted the language of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433: 'A single act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other.' Compare Albrecht v. United States, 273 U.S. 1, 11 , 12 S., 47 S. Ct. 250, and cases there cited. Applying the test, we must conclude that here, although both sections were violated by the one sale, two offenses were committed.
The case of Ballerini v. Aderholt (C. C. A.) 44 F.(2d) 352, is not in harmony with these views, and is disapproved.
Three. It is not necessary to discuss the additional assignments of error in respect of cross-examination, admission of testimony, statements made by the district [284 U.S. 299, 305] attorney to the jury claimed to be prejudicial, and instructions of the court. These matters were properly disposed of by the court below. Nor is there merit in the contention that the language of the penal section of the Narcotic Act (section 9, 26 USCA 705), 'any person who violates or fails to comply with any of the requirements of this act,' shall be punished, etc., is to be construed as imposing a single punishment for a violation of the distinct requirements of sections 1 and 2 when accomplished by one and the same sale. The plain meaning of the provision is that each offense is subject to the penalty prescribed; and, if that be too harsh, the remedy must be afforded by act of Congress, not by judicial legislation under the guise of construction. Under the circumstances, so far as disclosed, it is true that the imposition of the full penalty of fine and imprisonment upon each count seems unduly severe; but there may have been other facts and circumstances before the trial court properly influencing the extent of the punishment. In any event, the matter was one for that court, with whose judgment there is no warrant for interference on our part.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.