Opinion ID: 1043968
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Fourth Denton Factor

Text: The fourth Denton factor requires a comparison of the purposes of the respective statutes. See, e.g., Beauregard, 32 S.W.3d at 684 ([T]he statutory offenses of rape and incest have a related but separate legislative purpose and achieve contrasting policy objectives). Similarly, the United States Supreme Court has on occasion reinforced its conclusion regarding legislative intent, and the presumption arising from application of the Blockburger test, by comparing the purposes of the respective statutes. See, e.g., Albernaz, 450 U.S. at 343, 101 S.Ct. 1137 (commenting that the two conspiracy statutes are directed to separate evils). Thus, by focusing upon the abstract purposes of the respective statutes, the fourth Denton factor provides information pertinent to the crucial considerationlegislative intent.
The most significant shortcoming of the four-factor test is that the Denton Court failed to explain why article I, section 10 of the Tennessee Constitution requires adoption of a test different from that applied to challenges based upon the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See Denton, 938 S.W.2d at 381 n. 15 (predicating the test on article I, section 10 but providing no further explanation). As the final arbiter of the Tennessee Constitution, this Court may interpret state constitutional provisions more broadly than corresponding provisions of the United States Constitution. See Seals v. State, 23 S.W.3d 272, 277 (Tenn.2000). Indeed, this Court has departed [38] from federal interpretations of similar constitutional provisions where appropriate interpretive grounds support a different interpretation. See State v. Vineyard, 958 S.W.2d 730, 733-34 (Tenn.1997) (recognizing that textual differences may support interpreting the Tennessee Constitution differently than the United States Constitution). However, careful study has revealed no textual, historical, or other basis that supports interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause of article I, section 10 as requiring the adoption of a test different from that applied under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. First, as already noted, we have described the Double Jeopardy Clause of article I, section 10 as co-extensive with the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Harris, 919 S.W.2d at 327. Second, textual differences between the language of article I, section 10 and the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment are stylistic only. [39] Third, the language now appearing in article I, section 10 was adopted in 1796, [40] only five years after ratification of the Fifth Amendment. [41] It is logical to infer from the similarity of the language of the two provisions and the temporal proximity of their adoption that the drafters of article I, section 10 were aware of, and influenced by, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. We have found no authority, nor has any been provided to us, contravening such an inference. [42] Fourth, no differences between the government of the United States and the government of Tennessee suggest that article I, section 10 requires the adoption of a test different from Blockburger. Indeed, the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which the Blockburger test preserves, appears explicitly in the Tennessee Constitution. See Tenn. Const. art. II, § 2. Like the United States Supreme Court, this Court has recognized that [t]he power to define what shall constitute a criminal offense and to assess punishment for a particular crime is vested in the legislature. State v. Burdin, 924 S.W.2d 82, 87 (Tenn. 1996); see also State v. Farner, 66 S.W.3d 188, 200 (Tenn.2001). Given the analytical shortcomings of the Denton test and the lack of any textual or historical basis suggesting that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Tennessee Constitution mandates its adoption, we conclude that the time has come to abandon the Denton test. We adopt the Blockburger same elements test currently utilized by the federal courts and the vast majority of our sister states. The Blockburger test will enable Tennessee courts to determine in a more straightforward manner whether multiple convictions under different statutes violate the state constitutional double jeopardy prohibition against multiple punishment. [43]