Facts
- Alvin J. Dixon was arrested for second-degree murder in the District of Columbia, released on bond, and ordered not to commit “any criminal offense,” with warning of possible contempt prosecution.
- While on release, Dixon was arrested and indicted for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.
- After a show-cause hearing, the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Dixon committed the drug offense and convicted him of criminal contempt for violating the release condition.
- Dixon moved to dismiss the drug indictment, arguing the contempt conviction already punished the same offense.
- Michael Foster was subject to a civil protection order prohibiting assaulting or threatening his estranged wife.
- Foster was convicted of criminal contempt for violating the protection order based on later incidents.
- Foster was then indicted for five substantive offenses arising from the same episodes: simple assault, three counts of threatening to injure another, and assault with intent to kill.
- Foster moved to dismiss the indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds.
Issues
- Whether nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions trigger Double Jeopardy protections to the same extent as other criminal prosecutions.
- Whether successive-prosecution Double Jeopardy is governed by Blockburger’s “same-elements” test or Grady’s “same-conduct” test.
- Under the governing test, whether the later prosecutions of Dixon and Foster were barred.
Decision
- The Court held that Double Jeopardy applies to nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions as in other criminal cases.
- The Court overruled Grady v. Corbin and rejected the “same-conduct” test.
- The Court reaffirmed Blockburger’s “same-elements” test as the controlling standard for successive prosecutions.
- Applying Blockburger, the Court held Dixon’s later drug prosecution was barred because the contempt conviction, as charged and proved, required establishing the drug offense.
- Applying Blockburger to Foster, the Court held some later counts were barred and others were not, depending on whether each offense required proof of an element the other did not.
- The Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Legal Principles
- Nonsummary criminal contempt is a criminal prosecution for Double Jeopardy purposes when it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and results in punitive sanctions.
- Successive prosecutions are barred only when the two offenses are the “same offence” under Blockburger: each offense must contain an element not contained in the other; otherwise they are the same.
- Double Jeopardy does not bar a subsequent prosecution merely because it involves the same underlying conduct; the elements of the offenses control.
- When a contempt conviction is defined and proved by establishing commission of a specific substantive crime, a later prosecution for that same crime may be barred because the elements fully overlap.
Conclusion
The Court held that Double Jeopardy applies fully to nonsummary criminal contempt and that successive-prosecution analysis is governed by Blockburger’s same-elements test, not Grady’s same-conduct approach; on that basis, Dixon’s later drug prosecution was barred and Foster’s later charges were barred only to the extent their elements overlapped with the contempt offense.