Court Opinion

ID: 9796115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:49:14.287235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:49:03.185231
License: Public Domain

VOIGT, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
[117] I concur with the majority opinion out of respect for the doctrine of stare deci-sis. I am concerned, however, that in cases such as Bilderback v. State, 13 P.3d 249 (Wyo.2000); Rouse v. State, 966 P.2d 967 (Wyo.1998); and Owen v. State, 902 P.2d 190 (Wyo.1995), we have strayed from application of the statutory elements test of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) into the "conduct" or "evidence" test of Grady v. Corbin, 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990), overruled by United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 704, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2860, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993). I believe that the law correctly is as it is recited in State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1130 (Wyo.1993):
The [United States Supreme Court] has settled upon the application of the familiar Blockburger.... statutory elements test which directs:
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 an additional fact which the other does not.
The Blockburger test is the one chosen to determine if offenses have identical statutory elements of [sic] if the elements of an offense are identical to some of the elements of a greater offense in reaching a conclusion as to whether it is a lesser included offense.
It is clear that the Blockburger analysis parallels the statutory elements test for lesser included offenses. The application of the Blockburger test has nothing to do with the evidence presented at trial. As Blockburger is traced through.... it is clear that its role is to bar a subsequent prosecution if one of the two offenses is a lesser included offense of the other. That determination is made solely upon a comparison of the statutory elements.
Logically, the protection accorded by the double jeopardy clause with respect to multiple punishments should be based upon the same test. The double jeopardy clause prevents a "sentencing court from prescribing greater punishment than the legislature intended." Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366, 108 S.Ct. 673, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983). ... Historical review of the origin of the Blockburger test discloses that its use for multiple prosecution and cumulative punishments is consistent.
(Some citations omitted.) It is my view that, if two erimes do not bear a lesser-and greater-offense relationship to one another because they each contain an element not contained in the other, the legislature intended that multiple punishments could be imposed, even if the two separate offenses are based upon one underlying set of facts. In the instant case, the appellant could have been sentenced on each and every count upon which he was convicted.