## Facts

- Harry Blockburger was prosecuted under the Harrison Narcotics Act for selling morphine hydrochloride.
- An indictment charged multiple counts; a jury convicted him on the second, third, and fifth counts involving sales to the same purchaser.
- Count 2 charged a sale on a specified day of morphine not in or from the original stamped package.
- Count 3 charged a sale on the following day of morphine not in or from the original stamped package.
- Count 5 charged the same sale as in count 3 as also not made pursuant to the purchaser’s written order, as required by statute.
- The district court imposed five years’ imprisonment and a \$2,000 fine on each count, with consecutive prison terms.
- The court of appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether two morphine sales to the same buyer on successive days constituted one continuous offense or two separate offenses under the Act.
2. Whether a single sale could be punished under both § 1 (sale not in or from the original stamped package) and § 2 (sale not pursuant to a written order), or whether only one penalty could be imposed.
3. What test governs whether two statutory provisions define the “same offense” for purposes of multiple punishments.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- The two sales charged in counts 2 and 3 were separate and distinct transactions and therefore separate offenses.
- Sections 1 and 2 defined distinct offenses; a single sale violating both provisions could be punished cumulatively.
- The Act’s penalty language was read to authorize punishment for each distinct statutory requirement violated.

## Legal Principles

- Separate criminal transactions may be charged and punished separately even when involving the same buyer and close timing, if each sale is completed before the next is initiated.
- When the same act violates two statutory provisions, the controlling inquiry is whether each provision requires proof of a fact that the other does not.
- If each offense contains an element not contained in the other, cumulative punishment does not treat the violations as the same offense for double-jeopardy multiple-punishment purposes.

## Conclusion

The Court held that successive narcotics sales on different days were separate offenses and that a single sale could support cumulative punishment under two Harrison Narcotics Act provisions because each required proof of a different element, establishing the elements-based “Blockburger” test for determining whether there are two offenses or only one.


Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932)