Source: https://www.quimbee.com/essay-practice-exams/criminal-procedure-exam-5
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 16:49:44+00:00

Document:
Penal Code Section 100 (Burglary in the First Degree). A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree when he enters a building without consent and with intent to commit a crime, or enters a building without consent and commits a crime while in the building if: (a) the burglar possesses, when entering or at any time while in the building, a dangerous weapon, or (b) the burglar assaults a person within the building.
Penal Code Section 110 (Assault in the First Degree). A person is guilty of assault in the first degree if: (a) he intentionally causes serious physical injury to another person, or (b) he wantonly causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a dangerous weapon.
Penal Code Section 120 (Criminal Conspiracy). A person who agrees, conspires, combines, or confederates with another person or persons to commit any offense commits the offense of criminal conspiracy.
Under Penal Code § 110(b), A is indicted (Indictment 1) on one count of assault in the first degree for assaulting C, on the grounds that A “wantonly caused serious physical injury to another person by means of a dangerous weapon.” At trial, on cross-examination, C states that the cut on his hand was minor. During closing arguments, A’s counsel argues that, based on C’s testimony, the physical injury caused to C was not serious within the meaning of Penal Code § 110(b). After deliberating for twenty minutes, the jury finds A not guilty.
Subsequently, prosecutors bring another indictment (Indictment 2) against A, charging A with three counts. Count I charges burglary in the first degree under Penal Code § 100(a), on the basis that A “entered a building without consent and committed a crime while in the building” and that he “possessed, while entering or at any time while in the building, a dangerous weapon.” Under Penal Code § 120, count II charges that A conspired with B to commit assault in the first degree against C.
Based on newly discovered information, Count III charges A with assault in the first degree under Penal Code § 110(b) for the assault of C, on the basis that A “wantonly caused serious physical injury to another person by means of a dangerous weapon.” Two weeks after the conclusion of the first trial (in which A was acquitted), police investigators learned that C had to seek emergency medical treatment for the cut A inflicted on his hand. Although an investigator thoroughly questioned C, C did not inform the investigator of his treatment. Count III thus alleges that the resulting injury to C was serious under § 110(b), citing the medical treatment.
If A moves to dismiss Counts I, II, and III in Indictment 2 under the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, arguing only that the offenses in Indictment 2 are all the same offense as that in Indictment 1, how should the trial court rule? Explain, analyzing each count separately and applying only the same-elements test from Blockburger v. United States.

References: § 110
 § 110
 § 100
 § 120
 § 110
 § 110
 v.