Document: 459 U.S. 359 103 S.Ct. 673 74 L.Ed.2d 535 MISSOURI, Petitionerv.Danny HUNTER. No. 81-1214. Argued Nov. 10, 1982. Decided Jan. 19, 1983. Syllabus A Missouri statute provides that any person who commits felony under the laws of State through use a dangerous or deadly weapon is also guilty crime armed criminal action punishable by imprisonment for not less than three years, which punishment shall be in addition to provided law felony. Another convicted first-degree robbery means and punished five years. Respondent, as result supermarket he used revolver, was state court both action, pursuant statutes sentenced concurrent prison terms 10 years 15 action. The Court Appeals reversed respondent's conviction sentence on ground his violated protection against multiple punishments same offense Double Jeopardy Clause Fifth Amendment made applicable states Fourteenth Amendment. construed defining "same offense" test announced Blockburger v. United States, 284 299, 52 180, 76 L.Ed. 306, i.e., where act transaction constitutes violation two distinct statutes, determining whether there are offenses only one, each requires proof fact other does not. Held: Respondent's single trial did violate Clause. Pp. 365-369. (a) With respect cumulative sentences imposed trial, no more prevent sentencing from prescribing greater legislature intended. 365-368. (b) Simply because may proscribe conduct mean precludes imposition, those statutes. Whalen 445 684, 100 1432, 63 715; Albernaz 450 333, 101 1137, 67 275. rule statutory construction whereby permitted "in absence clear indication contrary legislative intent," Whalen, supra, at 692, 1438, constitutional requiring courts negate clearly expressed intent. Accordingly, where, here, specifically authorizes regardless "same" Blockburger, court's task an end prosecution seek jury impose such trial. P. 679. 622 S.W.2d 374, vacated remanded. Philip M. Koppe, Kansas City, Mo. petitioner. Gary L. Gardner, Mo., respondent. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion court. 1 We granted certiorari consider defendant charge "armed action" first degree robbery—the underlying felony—violates 2 * On evening November 24, 1978, respondent accomplices entered & P Missouri. Respondent store manager's office ordered manager, gun point, open safes. While manager complying with demands robbers, struck him twice butt revolver. progress, employee drove front observed went nearby bank alert off-duty police officer. That officer arrived men stop. fired shot returned fire but trio escaped. 3 were apprehended. In being positively identified line-up, oral written confession admitted evidence. At offered direct evidence degree, assault malice. 4 Missouri's proscribing Mo.Ann.Stat.App. § 560.120 (Vernon 1979), provides: 5 "Every feloniously taking property another person, presence, will, violence putting fear some immediate injury person; wife, servant, clerk agent, thereof, will agent her adjudged degree." 6 560.135 1979) prescribes pertinent part: every division corrections . ." 7 Mo.Stat.App. 559.225 proscribes 8 "[A]ny this by, with, use, assistance, aid and, upon conviction, term subsection committed weapon. No eligible parole, probation, conditional release suspended imposition execution period calendar years." 9 Pursuant these ten years' robbery; action; (c) consecutive assault, total 20 appeal Appeals, claimed States Constitution agreed 15-year 374 (1981). relied entirely holding Supreme opinions Haggard, 619 44 (Mo.1981); Sours State, 593 208 (Mo.), sub nom. Sours, 446 962, 2935, 64 820 (1980) (Sours I ); 603 592 (1980), cert. denied, 449 1131, 953, 118 (1981) II ). State's timely alternative motion rehearing transfer denied September 15, 1981. review 11 certiorari, --- ----, 102 1767, 72 173 (1982), we vacate remand. 12 adopted its challenged approach issue now before us I, supra.1 case, separately based robbery. concluded 306 (1932), Amendment's acknowledged had intent should subject S.W.2d, 216. nevertheless held "prohibits imposing felony." Id., 223. It then set aside defendant's action.2 13 When sought here remanded case reconsideration light our 715 (1980). remand, II, adhered previous ruling bars separate offense, notwithstanding defined offenses.3 14 Most recently, reexamined decisions 1981 275 (1981).4 court, however, remained unpersuaded, stating: "Until time declares unequivocally apply branch government, cannot do what perceive duty refuse enforce arising out transaction." 51. This view manifests misreading cases meaning Amendment; need hardly go so far suggested decide constitutionally can prescribe statute. III 16 cast explicitly "twice put jeopardy." have consistently interpreted it " 'to protect individual subjected hazards possible once alleged offense.' Burks 437 1, 11, 98 2141, 2147, 57 (1978), quoting Green 355 184, 187, 78 221, 223, 199 (1957). Because has been one contended right free trials violated. Rather, statements "protects offense." North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 717, 89 2072, 2076, 23 656 (1969). Particularly recent precedents Court, misperceived nature Clause's punishments. 17 addressed question rape killing victim perpetration federal law. divided controversy proscribed offense. stated: 18 "The provisions, applied determine provision not." U.S., 304, S.Ct., 182. 19 noted established terms: assumption Congress ordinarily intend punish different provisions 'same offense,' they authorize intent." 691-692, 1437-1438 (emphasis added). 21 emphasize qualification rule: 22 "[W]here permitted, unless elsewhere specially authorized Congress." 693, 1438 clear, therefore, turned saw "clear construction, could 24 (1981), cumulatively conspiracy import marihuana distribute marihuana. There, contrast sense 'each [that] not.' 339, 1142, might well stopped point upheld petitioners' since presumptively assessed after Blockburger. See, e.g., American Tobacco Co. 328 781, 66 1125, 90 1575 (1946). However, because: 25 'rule construction,' serves discerning congressional purpose controlling example, 340, 1143 26 found "[n]othing history discloses presumption accorded application test." Ibid. discussion impact language: [T]he permissible Legislative Branch intended imposed. Where intended, punishments, Constitution." 344, 1145 added) (footnote omitted). 27 Here, crime. addition, recognized violations cumulative. bound accept See O'Brien Skinner, 414 524, 531, 94 740, 743, 38 702 (1974). Court's legal conclusion Clause, reject conclusion. 28 Our analysis reasoning lead inescapably simply Thus far, utilized limit power convictions when clear. Legislature crystal Legislatures, courts, scope punishments.5 29 Where, prosecutor 30 judgment Missouri, Western District, further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 31 So ordered. 32 MARSHALL, whom STEVENS joins, dissenting. 33 forbids either prosecutions "the offence." 717-718, 2076-2077, (1969); Benz, 282 307-308, 51 113, 114, 75 354 (1931); Ex parte Lange, 85 (18 Wall.) 163, 169, 173-175, 872 (1873). lesser-included robbery, crimes. Had tried crimes trials, would plainly offence" Clause.1 Harris Oklahoma, 433 682, 97 2912, 53 1054 (1977) (per curiam Brown Ohio, 432 161, 2221, 187 (1977). For reasons stated below, believe phrase thing purposes prohibition something else punishment. 34 First-degree constitute forth 182, (1932). To required prove predicated act, mind, establish thus elements robbery: crime, again 35 wide latitude define given (e.g., fine term) But permit "offence" within whenever risk law, "put jeopardy life limb." If jeopardy" real meaning, allowed convict two, three, times enacting nominally restrictions legislature's punishment, number obtain basis result. create substantively identical differing name, series offenses, second, second third, on.3 36 Contrary assertion amicus brief, Brief 18-19, entry justified created prescribed harsher argument incorrectly assumes all matters, obtained relevance concerns 37 charges brought, charge. retain freedom, must acquittal charges; prison, verdict. prosecution's ability bring increases charges. very arrested, charged, brought several suggest least Moreover, weak, substantially enhance possibility that, even though innocent, compromise submission rather gives advantage offering choice—a situation apt induce doubtful find serious continue debate innocence." Cichos Indiana, 385 76, 81, 87 271, 273, 175 (1966) (Fortas, J., dissenting dismissal certiorari).4 Government's overlooks quite apart imposed, typically collateral consequences, jurisdiction jurisdictions. Benton Maryland, 784, 790, 2056, 2060, 707 Sibron New York, 392 40, 53-58, 88 1889, 1897-1900, 917 (1968). often critical consequences faces. prior generally habitual offender 39 Furthermore, itself represents pronouncement engaged warranting moral condemnation community. Hart, Aims Criminal Law, Law Contemp. Probs. 401, 404-405 (1958). formal community, additional imposes stigma causes damage reputation. O'Clair 470 F.2d 1199, 1203 (CA1 1972), 412 921, 93 2741, 148 (1973). 40 scheme permits therefore regarded equivalent equal severity. convictions, him. 41 appropriate demonstrates legitimate interest seeking creation strengthen hand. advances valid just easily achieved without bringing defendant. 42 considerations, reasonably leave legislatures completely transaction. context prosecutions, independent content—that satisfy treat them offenses.5 Otherwise legislature. long assumed stature cases,6 hesitate hold is. provide meaningful protection, content cases. Since limits branches including legislature, reason 43 respectfully dissent. double Constitution, Const. art. "has 'only jury.' 211, Murray 475 67, 70 (Mo.1972). Clearly, Amendment, provision, arose, took position Treadway, 558 646 (Mo.1977), 439 838, 99 124, 58 135 (1978); Valentine, 584 92 (Mo.1979). recently order uniformity type cases, instances. [W]e convinced historical background statute, net effect (in pure enlarging) penalty attempt enlarge having failed phrased thereby violative jeopardy, left Kane, 629 372, 377 (Mo.1982). petition writ denied. BLACKMUN REHNQUIST dismissed moot. Subsequent decision remand districts began reversing most instances, Court. response petitions, repeatedly supra. Counselman, 990, 1690, 68 190 orders read same: "Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, consideration [450 275]." chose "as vehicle accomplishing reexamination 'in Albernaz.' 49. presents issues forbidden first, ended acquittal. Under defines felonious threat violence. Mo.Rev.Stat. (1979). Armed commission Although necessary properly theoretical irrelevant charged. 208, 217-220 (Mo.1980), (1982). Cf. (defendant murder firearms firearms). Petitioner makes contrary. majority relies passage 1145, ante, 367-368 dicta. test, involve test. relies, 366-367, likewise question. occasion decide, if 689, 1436 ("The so.") supplied). true familiar procedure submitted along told usual procedure, irrational reduced element distinguishes dispute. Sansone 380 343, 1004, 882 (1965); Tsanas, 572 345-346 (CA2), 435 995, 1647, 56 84 (1978). later nearly century ago. re Nielsen, 131 176, 186-188, 672, 675-676, (1889). also, Snow, 120 274, 556, 658 (1887). case. rejecting claim not, Brandeis's Albrecht 273 47 250, 71 505 (1927), expressly analyzed rejected commit committing other, id., 253.

Category: 0