Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/95691/blockburger-vs-united-states
Timestamp: 2017-02-28 10:40:06
Document Index: 64363283

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1006', '§ 2', '§ 189', '§ 312', '§ 2', '§ 1']

Blockburger Vs United States - Citation 95691 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Blockburger Vs. United States - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/95691CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnJan-04-1932Case Number284 U.S. 299AppellantBlockburgerRespondentUnited StatesExcerpt:.....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.
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..... Judgment:
Blockburger v. United States - 284 U.S. 299 (1932)
1. Two sales of morphine not in or from the original stamped package, the second having been initiated after the first was complete,
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.
sale not in or from the original stamped package and without a written order. P.
284 U. S. 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.
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.
284 U. S. 305
p. 607, to review a judgment affirming a sentence under the Narcotics Act.
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; [
] and c. 1, § 2, 38 Stat. 785, 786. [
] The indictment
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.
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.
120 U. S. 281
120 U. S. 286
"A distinction is laid down in adjudged cases and in text writers between an offense continuous in its character, like the one at bar, and a case where the statute is aimed at an offense that can be committed
uno ictu.
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
case, but by such cases as that of
. There, the accused was convicted under several counts of a willful tearing, etc., of mail bags with intent to rob. The court (p.
237 U. S. 628
) stated the question to be
Answering this question, the court, after quoting the statute, § 189, Criminal Code, (U.S. C. title 18, § 312) said (p.
237 U. S. 629
See also Ex parte Henry,
Ex parte De Bara,
179 U. S. 316
179 U. S. 320
Badders v. United States,
240 U. S. 391
240 U. S. 394
Wilkes v. Dinsman,
7 How. 89,
48 U. S. 127
Queen v. Scott,
4 Best & S. (Q.B.) 368, 373.
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
The statute is not aimed at sales of the forbidden drugs
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
274 U. S. 294
Nigro v. United States,
276 U. S. 332
276 U. S. 341
276 U. S. 345
276 U. S. 351
, and authorities cited. In that case, this court quoted from and adopted the language of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in
108 Mass. 433:
Compare Albrecht v. United States,
-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.
Ballerini v. Aderholt,
44 F.2d 352, is not in harmony with these views, and is disapproved.
It is not necessary to discuss the additional assignments of error in respect of cross-examination, admission of testimony, statements made by the district