Opinion ID: 78448
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: BlockburgerSame Elements Test

Text: To determine whether the courts have violated the protection of the Fifth Amendment, we turn to the test set out in Blockburger: 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. Id. (citing Gavieres v. United States, 220 U.S. 338, 342, 31 S.Ct. 421, 55 L.Ed. 489 (1911)). We start our Blockburger analysis by examining the statutory elements of each offense. A person commits identity theft in violation of § 1028(a)(7) if he or she (1) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses; (2) without lawful authority; (3) a means of identification of another person; (4) with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicable State or local law. A person commits aggravated identify theft in violation of § 1028A(a)(1) if he or she (1) knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses; (2) without lawful authority; (3) a means of identification of another person ... or a false identification document (4) during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated in subsection (c). [4] Section 1029(a)(2), access device fraud, is a felony violation enumerated in subsection (c) and also a violation of federal law. Reviewing the statutory language, one offense does not require proof of an additional fact that the other does not. The first three elements of both offenses are identical. Although the last elements seem different at first glance, both statutes require an unlawful activity in violation of a law; § 1028A just narrows which violations of law trigger that statute. In other words, while any unlawful activity in violation of federal law triggers § 1028(a)(7), § 1028A(a)(1) requires the defendant commit an offense listed in § 1028A(c). Here, the predicate offense was access device fraud (§ 1029), a violation of both federal law and § 1028A(c). But regardless of the predicate offense, any conduct that would constitute a crime under § 1028A(a)(1) would also be a crime covered by the provisions of § 1028(a)(7). This is a clear example of one act violating two distinct statutory provisions and therefore violating the protection against double jeopardy.