Court Opinion

ID: 9428994
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:25:23.958804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:16.730331
License: Public Domain

Justice Marshall,
with whom Justice Stevens joins,
dissenting.
The Double Jeopardy Clause forbids either multiple prosecutions or multiple punishment for “the same offence.” See, e. g., North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 717-718 (1969); United States v. Benz, 282 U. S. 304, 307-308 (1931); Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 169, 173-175 (1874). Respondent was convicted of both armed criminal action and the lesser included offense of first-degree robbery, and he was sentenced for both crimes. Had respondent been tried for these two crimes in separate trials, he would plainly have been subjected to multiple prosecutions for “the same of-fence” in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.1 See Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U. S. 682 (1977) (per curiam); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U. S. 161 (1977). For the reasons stated below, I do not believe that the phrase “the same offence” should be interpreted to mean one thing for purposes of the prohibition against multiple prosecutions and something else for purposes of the prohibition against multiple punishment.
First-degree robbery and armed criminal action constitute the same offense under the test set forth in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U. S. 299, 304 (1932). To punish respondent for first-degree robbery, the State was not required *370to prove a single fact in addition to what it had to prove to punish him for armed criminal action.2 The punishment imposed for first-degree robbery was not predicated upon proof of any act, state of mind, or result different from that required to establish armed criminal action. Respondent was thus punished twice for the elements of first-degree robbery: once when he was convicted and sentenced for that crime, and again when he was convicted and sentenced for armed criminal action.
A State has wide latitude to define crimes and to prescribe the punishment for a given crime. For example, a State is free to prescribe two different punishments (e. g., a fine and a prison term) for a single offense. But the Constitution does not permit a State to punish as two crimes conduct that constitutes only one “offence” within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. For whenever a person is subjected to the risk that he will be convicted of a crime under state law, he is “put in jeopardy of life or limb.” If the prohibition against being “twice put in jeopardy” for “the same offence” is to have any real meaning, a State cannot be allowed to con*371vict a defendant two, three, or more times simply by enacting separate statutory provisions defining nominally distinct crimes. If the Double Jeopardy Clause imposed no restrictions on a legislature’s power to authorize multiple punishment, there would be no limit to the number of convictions that a State could obtain on the basis of the same act, state of mind, and result. A State would be free to create substantively identical crimes differing only in name, or to create a series of greater and lesser included offenses, with the first crime a lesser included offense of the second, the second a lesser included offense of the third, and so on.3
Contrary to the assertion of the United States in its ami-cus brief, Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 18-19, the entry of two convictions and the imposition of two sentences cannot be justified on the ground that the legislature could have simply created one crime but prescribed harsher punishment for that crime. This argument incorrectly assumes that the total sentence imposed is all that matters, and that the number of convictions that can be obtained is of no *372relevance to the concerns underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause.
When multiple charges are brought, the defendant is “put in jeopardy” as to each charge. To retain his freedom, the defendant must obtain an acquittal on all charges; to put the defendant in prison, the prosecution need only obtain a single guilty verdict. The prosecution’s ability to bring multiple charges increases the risk that the defendant will be convicted on one or more of those charges. The very fact that a defendant has been arrested, charged, and brought to trial on several charges may suggest to the jury that he must be guilty of at least one of those crimes. Moreover, where the prosecution’s evidence is weak, its ability to bring multiple charges may substantially enhance the possibility that, even though innocent, the defendant may be found guilty on one or more charges as a result of a compromise verdict. The submission of two charges rather than one gives the prosecution “the advantage of offering the jury a choice — a situation which is apt to induce a doubtful jury to find the defendant guilty of the less serious offense rather than to continue the debate as to his innocence.” Cichos v. Indiana, 385 U. S. 76, 81 (1966) (Fortas, J., dissenting from dismissal of certiorari).4
The Government’s argument also overlooks the fact that, quite apart from any sentence that is imposed, each separate criminal conviction typically has collateral consequences, in both the jurisdiction in which the conviction is obtained and in other jurisdictions. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784, 790 (1969); Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 53-58 *373(1968). The number of convictions is often critical to the collateral consequences that an individual faces. For example, a defendant who has only one prior conviction will generally not be subject to sentencing under a habitual offender statute.
Furthermore, each criminal conviction itself represents a pronouncement by the State that the defendant has engaged in conduct warranting the moral condemnation of the community. See Hart, The Aims of the Criminal Law, 23 Law & Contemp. Prob. 401, 404-405 (1958). Because a criminal conviction constitutes a formal judgment of condemnation by the community, each additional conviction imposes an additional stigma and causes additional damage to the defendant’s reputation. See O’Clair v. United States, 470 F. 2d 1199, 1203 (CA1 1972), cert. denied, 412 U. S. 921 (1973).
A statutory scheme that permits the prosecution to obtain two convictions and two sentences therefore cannot be regarded as the equivalent of a statute that permits only a single conviction, whether or not that single conviction can result in a sentence of equal severity. The greater the number of possible convictions, the greater the risk that the defendant faces. The defendant is “put in jeopardy” with respect to each charge against him.
The very fact that the State could simply convict a defendant such as respondent of one crime and impose an appropriate punishment for that crime demonstrates that it has no legitimate interest in seeking multiple convictions and multiple punishment. The creation of multiple crimes serves only to strengthen the prosecution’s hand. It advances no valid state interest that could not just as easily be achieved without bringing multiple charges against the defendant.
In light of these considerations, the Double Jeopardy Clause cannot reasonably be interpreted to leave legislatures completely free to subject a defendant to the risk of multiple punishment on the basis of a single criminal transaction. In the context of multiple prosecutions, it is well established *374that the phrase “the same offence” in the Double Jeopardy Clause has independent content — that two crimes that do not satisfy the Blockburger test constitute “the same offence” under the Double Jeopardy Clause regardless of the legislature’s intent to treat them as separate offenses.5 Otherwise multiple prosecutions would be permissible whenever authorized by the legislature. The Court has long assumed that the Blockburger test is also a rule of constitutional stature in multiple-punishment cases,6 and I would not hesitate to hold that it is. If the prohibition against being “twice put in jeopardy” for “the same offence” is to provide meaningful protection, the phrase “the same offence” must have content independent of state law in both contexts. Since the Double Jeopardy Clause limits the power of all branches of government, including the legislature, there is no more reason to treat the test as simply a rule of statutory construction in multiple-punishment cases than there would be in multiple-prosecution cases.
I respectfully dissent.

 The Double Jeopardy Clause would have forbidden multiple prosecutions regardless of which charge was brought first, and regardless of whether the first trial ended in a conviction or an acquittal.

 Under Blockburger “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.” 284 U. S., at 304. Missouri law defines first-degree robbery as the felonious taking of property of another from his person, or in his presence, by violence or threat of violence. Mo. Rev. Stat. §560.120 (1969). Armed criminal action is the commission of a felony with a dangerous or deadly weapon. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 559.225 (Supp. 1976). Although the underlying felony necessary to obtain a conviction for armed criminal action need not be first-degree robbery, the Missouri courts have properly recognized that the theoretical possibility that the underlying felony could be some felony other than first-degree robbery is irrelevant for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause where no other underlying felony is in fact charged. Sours v. State, 593 S. W. 2d 208, 217-220 (Mo.), vacated and remanded, 446 U. S. 962 (1980). Cf. Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U. S. 682 (1977) (defendant cannot be subjected to multiple prosecutions for felony murder and robbery with firearms where the felony underlying the felony-murder charge was robbery with firearms). Petitioner makes no argument to the contrary.

 Although the majority relies on a passage in Albernaz v. United States, 450 U. S. 333,344 (1981), which states that cumulative punishment does not violate the Constitution so long as it is authorized by the legislature, ante, at 367-368, that passage is clearly dicta. The Court held in Albemaz that the two crimes at issue did not constitute the same offense under the Blockburger test, 450 U. S., at 339, because each required proof of a fact which the other did not. Albemaz simply did not involve the question whether the Double Jeopardy Clause forbids multiple punishment for two crimes that do constitute the same offense under the Blockburger test.
Whalen v. United States, 445 U. S. 684 (1980), on which the Court also relies, ante, at 366-367, likewise did not decide this question. Whalen held that, “in the absence of a clear indication of contrary legislative intent,” 445 U. S., at 692, a defendant cannot be subjected to multiple punishment for two crimes that constitute the same offense under Blockburger. The Court had no occasion to decide, and it did not decide, whether multiple punishment for two such crimes can be imposed if clearly authorized by the legislature. See 445 U. S., at 689 (“The Double Jeopardy Clause at the very least precludes federal courts from imposing consecutive sentences unless authorized by Congress to do so”) (emphasis supplied).

 It is true that compromise is possible even under the familiar procedure whereby a lesser included offense is submitted along with a greater offense and the jury is told that it can convict on only one charge. Under the usual procedure, however, the risk of an irrational compromise is reduced by the rule that a lesser included offense will not be submitted to the jury if the element that distinguishes the two offenses is not in dispute. See, e. g., Sansone v. United States, 380 U. S. 343 (1965); United States v. Tsanas, 572 F. 2d 340, 345-346 (CA2), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 995 (1978).

 The test later set forth in Blockburger was adopted by this Court in the context of multiple prosecutions nearly a century ago. See In re Nielsen, 131 U. S. 176, 186-188 (1889). See also In re Snow, 120 U. S. 274 (1887).

 Blockburger itself was a multiple-punishment case. In rejecting the defendant’s double jeopardy claim on the ground that each crime required proof of a fact which the other did not, 284 U. S., at 304, the Court relied on Justice Brandéis’ opinion for the Court in Albrecht v. United States, 273 U. S. 1 (1927), in which he had expressly analyzed a claim of multiple punishment in constitutional rather than statutory terms and rejected the claim because it would have been possible to commit each crime without committing the other, id., at 11.