Source: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/legal/l1930/blockburger_v_us.htm
Timestamp: 2017-01-17 13:02:12
Document Index: 635493702

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\n1', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1006', '§ 692', '§ 2', '§ 696', '§ 34', '§ 189', '§ 312', '§ 2', '§ 1', '§ 1']

Blockburger v. US, US Supreme Court, 1932
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 374 1932.SCT.15 , 284 U.S. 299, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 January 4, 1932 BLOCKBURGER v. UNITED STATES CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. Mr. Harold J. Bandy was on the brief for petitioner. Mr. Claude R. Branch, with whom Solicitor General Thatcher, Assistant Attorney General
Dodds, and Mr. Harry S. Ridgely were on the brief, for the United States. Hughes, Holmes, Van Devanter, McReynolds, Brandeis, Sutherland, Butler, Stone, Roberts The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sutherland 1. Two sales of morphine not in or from the original stamped package, the second having
been initiated after the first was complete, held separate and distinct offenses under §
1 of the Narcotics Act, although buyer and seller were the same in both cases and but
little time elapsed between the end of the one transaction and the beginning of the other.
P. 301. 2. Section 1 of the Narcotics Act, forbidding sale except in or from the original
stamped package, and § 2, forbidding sale not in pursuance of a written order of the
person to whom the drug is sold, create two distinct offenses, and both are committed by a
single sale not in or from the original stamped package and without a written order. P.
303. 3. 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 a fact which the other does not. P. 304. 4. The penal section of the Act, "any person who violates or fails to comply with
any of the requirements of this act" shall be punished, etc., means that each offense
is subject to the penalty prescribed. P. 305. CERTIORARI, post, p. 607, to review a judgement affirming a sentence under the
Narcotics Act. MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court. 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); *footnote 1 and c. 1, § 2, 38 Stat. 785, 786, as amended, (U. S. C., Title
26, § 696). *footnote 2 The indictment 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 judgement
was affirmed on appeal. 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. The contention on behalf of petitioner is that these two sales, having been made to the
same purchaser and following each other with no substantial interval of time between the
delivery of the drug in the first transaction and the payment for the second quantity
sold, constitute a single continuing offense. The contention is unsound. The distinction
between the transactions here involved and an offense continuous in its character, is well
settled, as was pointed out by this court in the case of In re Snow, 120 U.S. 274. There
it was held that the offense of cohabiting with more than one woman, created by the Act of
March 22, 1882, c. 47, 22 Stat. 31, was a continuous offense, and was committed, in the
sense of the statute, where there was a living or dwelling together as husband and wife.
The court said (pp. 281, 286): "It is, inherently, a continuous offence, having duration; and not an offense
consisting of an isolated act. "A distinction is laid down in adjudged cases and in textwriters between an
offence continuous in its character, like the one at bar, and a case where the statute is
aimed at an offence that can be committed uno ictu." The Narcotic Act does not create the offense of engaging in the business of selling the
forbidden drugs, but penalizes any sale made in the absence of either of the qualifying
requirements set forth. Each of several successive sales constitutes a distinct offense,
however closely they may follow each other. The distinction stated by Mr. Wharton is that
"when the impulse is single, but one indictment lies, no matter how long the action
may continue. If successive impulses are separately given, even though all unite in
swelling a common stream of action, separate indictments lie." Wharton's , 11th ed.,
§ 34. Or, as stated in note 3 to that section, "The test is whether the individual
acts are prohibited, or the course of action which they constitute. If the former, then
each act is punishable separately . . . If the latter, there can be but one penalty."
In the present case, the first transaction, resulting in a sale, had come to an end.
The next sale was not the result of the original impulse, but of a fresh one -- that is to
say, of a new bargain. The question is controlled, not by the Snow case, but by such cases
as that of Ebeling v. Morgan, 237 U.S. 625. There the accused was convicted under several
counts of a willful tearing, etc., of mail bags, with intent to rob. The court (p. 628)
stated the question to be, "whether one who, in the same transaction, tears or cuts
successively mail bags of the United States used in conveyance of the mails, with intent
to rob or steal any such mail, is guilty of a single offense or of additional offenses
because of each successive cutting with the criminal intent charged." Answering this
question, the court, after quoting the statute, § 189, Criminal Code (U. S. C., Title 18,
§ 312), said (p. 629): "These words plainly indicate that it was the intention of the lawmakers to
protect each and every mail bag from felonious injury and mutilation. Whenever any one
mail bag is thus torn, cut or injured, the offense is complete. Although the transaction
of cutting the mail bags was in a sense continuous, the complete statutory offense was
committed every time a mail bag was cut in the manner described, with the intent charged.
The offense as to each separate bag was complete when that bag was cut, irrespective of
any attack upon, or mutilation of, any other bag." See also In re Henry, 123 U.S. 372, 374; In re De Bara, 179 U.S. 316, 320; Badders v.
United States, 240 U.S. 391, 394; Wilkes v. Dinsman, 7 How. 89, 127; United States v.
Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360; 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 § 2 creates the offense of
selling any of such drugs not in pursuance of a written 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 §§ 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; Nigro v. United
States, 276 U.S. 332, 341, 345, 351. 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 a fact which the other does not.
Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342, 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, 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, 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 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, "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
§§ 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 judgement there is no warrant for interference on our part. Judgment affirmed. Opinion Footnotes *footnote 1 "It shall be unlawful for any person to purchase, sell, dispense, or
distribute any of the aforesaid drugs [opium and other narcotics] except in the original
stamped package or from the original stamped package; and the absence of appropriate
tax-paid stamps from any of the aforesaid drugs shall be prima facie evidence of a
violation of this section by the person in whose possession same may be found; . . ."
footnote 2 "It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, barter, exchange, or give
away any of the drugs specified in section 691 of this title, except in pursuance of a
written order of the person to whom such article is sold, bartered, exchanged, or given,
on a form to be issued in blank for that purpose by the Commissioner of Internal