Opinion ID: 2576140
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Possible tests in double jeopardy cases

Text: In our analysis of double jeopardy in this successive prosecution case, this court discussed the three tests that courts have applied in determining whether offenses are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes: 1. The same elements test initially set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932): [t]he 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 requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Lessary, 75 Haw. at 452, 865 P.2d at 153 (quoting Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304, 52 S.Ct. 180)(alteration in original). 2. The same conduct test set forth in Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 521, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990): the Double Jeopardy Clause bars any subsequent prosecution in which the government, to establish an essential element of an offense charged in that prosecution, will prove conduct that constitutes an offense for which the defendant has already been prosecuted. Lessary, 75 Haw. at 457-58, 865 P.2d at 155 (quoting Grady, 495 U.S. at 521, 110 S.Ct. 2084). 3. The same episode test set forth in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 453-54, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970) (Brennan, J., concurring): all offenses `that grow out of a single criminal act, occurrence, episode, or transaction' are considered to be the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. Lessary, 75 Haw. at 458, 865 P.2d at 155-56 (quoting Ashe, 397 U.S. at 453-54, 90 S.Ct. 1189).