Blockburger v. United States
The Court ruled that a drug seller who made two separate sales to the same buyer on consecutive days committed two separate crimes, not one continuing offense, because each sale was a fresh transaction.
It also held that a single sale violating two different requirements of the same narcotics law -- selling outside the original stamped package and selling without a required written order -- counts as two distinct crimes, since each rule requires proof of something the other does not, so both punishments could be imposed.
“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 a fact which the other does not.”
The Court's statement of the test for deciding whether one act can be punished as two separate crimes.
How it got here: A trial court convicted and sentenced the man on three counts; a federal court of appeals affirmed; he asked the Supreme Court to review the multiple-punishment issue.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A man was charged under the federal Harrison Narcotic Act with selling morphine to the same buyer on two consecutive days, without using the required tax-stamped packaging and without the buyer's required written order. A jury convicted him on three counts, and the trial judge imposed five years in prison and a $2,000 fine on each count, to run one after another.
The question before the Court
If a person sells illegal drugs twice to the same buyer on back-to-back days, and one sale breaks two different rules of the same drug law, how many crimes were committed?
The Court's answer
Two separate legal questions, two answers. First, back-to-back sales to the same buyer count as two crimes, not one, because each sale was completed by delivery before the next began -- the second sale arose from a fresh bargain, not a continuation of the first. Second, when a single sale breaks two different rules of the same drug law, that counts as two offenses rather than one.
The Court applied what became known as the same-elements test: a single act that violates two statutory provisions is punishable as two separate crimes if each provision requires proof of a fact the other does not. Since selling outside a stamped package and selling without a written order each require different proof, the man could be separately punished for both, even though only one sale was involved.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
The ruling let prosecutors stack separate criminal counts, and separate prison sentences and fines, for each individual drug sale and for each distinct legal requirement broken by a single sale. This gave prosecutors broad power to seek multiple, cumulative punishments from what might look to an ordinary person like one continuous course of dealing.
What changes now
The convictions and consecutive sentences on all three counts stood. This decision left prosecutors free, going forward, to charge separate counts for each individual sale in a series and for each distinct legal requirement a single sale violates, so long as each requirement demands proof the other does not. The opinion also disapproved a conflicting lower-court decision on the same issue.
What this does not decide
The Court did not decide whether Congress's penalty scheme was fair or proportionate -- it said that if stacking punishments this way seemed too harsh, only Congress, not the courts, could fix it. The ruling is limited to whether the two situations presented legally distinct offenses, not whether the sentences imposed were otherwise appropriate.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court distinguished offenses that are inherently continuous in nature, like unlawfully living with more than one spouse, from offenses that are complete the instant a single prohibited act occurs -- here, each sale of drugs is its own complete act rather than part of one ongoing course of conduct.
- Applying that distinction, the Court found that once the first sale was finished by delivery, the buyer's payment for more drugs the next day started an entirely new bargain, not a continuation of the first -- so the two transactions were legally separate sales.
- For the question of whether one sale that broke two different legal requirements was one crime or two, the Court adopted what is now called the 'same-elements' test: when a single act violates two different statutory provisions, it counts as two offenses if each provision requires proof of some fact the other does not.
- The Court found that the requirement to sell only from a stamped package and the requirement to sell only with a written purchase order are legally distinct requirements, each demanding proof the other does not, even though a single sale broke both at once.
- Because the statute's penalty language attaches to any violation of 'any of the requirements' of the law, the Court read this as authorizing separate punishment for each distinct requirement violated, not one blended punishment covering both.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Overrules Ballerini v. Aderholt (44 F. (2d) 352)
The Court rejected this lower court ruling as inconsistent with its holding that one sale violating two requirements is two offenses.
Distinguishes In re Snow (120 U. S. 274)
The Court said this continuous-offense case did not control because separate drug sales are distinct acts, not one ongoing offense.
Reaffirms Ebeling v. Morgan (237 U. S. 625)
The Court relied on this case's rule that each separate prohibited act, even in one transaction, is its own punishable offense.
Reaffirms Gavieres v. United States (220 U. S. 338)
The Court applied this case's same-elements test for deciding whether one act violating two laws is one or two crimes.