Also known as: same act and transaction · same transaction test · same act
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A unified course of criminal conduct in which multiple offenses occur without meaningful separation in time, place, or purpose.
Simone Sanders approached a locked construction gate and punched the guard to gain entry. Seconds later she brandished a knife and took his wallet. The initial punch and the subsequent taking formed one continuous episode at the same location with no break in events.
Serena Soto struck a victim during an argument and then seized both a ring from the victim's hand and a wallet from a nearby bench. The two property takings occurred in the same struggle yet involved separate items and distinct methods of acquisition.
Sebastian Santos was indicted on charges of assault and robbery arising from a single backstage confrontation at a concert venue. The indictment joined both counts because the punch and the demand for money occurred in immediate succession in the same narrow corridor.
In 1939 and 1940, petitioners Kotteakos, Lekacos, Regenbogen and other defendants obtained loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration by submitting applications through Simon Brown, president of the Brownie Lumber Company, that contained false statements about the purpose of the loans, property ownership, purchase prices, and financial details. Brown prepared the applications, received the loan proceeds from lending institutions, paid the sellers, and divided the difference with the defendants who had procured each application. Each petitioner or small group of defendants dealt exclusively with Brown on distinct transactions and had no knowledge of or connection to the activities of any other group. The indictment named thirty-two defendants and charged them with one conspiracy to defraud the United States by making false statements and representations to the Federal Housing Administration for the purpose of obtaining credit. Nineteen defendants were brought to trial, and the jury acquitted seven, disagreed as to four, and convicted the remaining twelve petitioners. The Government's evidence established at least eight separate and independent groups of defendants, each acting independently with Brown as the sole common link and without any agreement or communication among the groups. Brown pleaded guilty and testified at trial. No evidence showed that any defendant knew of or participated in the transactions of defendants outside his own group. The trial court instructed the jury that the indictment charged a single conspiracy, that the jury must find each defendant was a member of that conspiracy to convict, and that the acts or statements of any conspirator could be considered against all defendants once membership was established. The court did not instruct the jury that it could convict only upon finding the single conspiracy charged or that it must keep evidence of separate transactions separate. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, recognizing that the proof showed multiple conspiracies rather than the single conspiracy alleged but concluding that the variance and instructional error were not prejudicial. The Supreme Court granted certiorari because of the importance of the issues for the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts.
View caseStella Shapiro was tried for battery after an earlier conviction for robbery based on the same locker-room struggle in which she struck the victim and took his ring. The second prosecution was precluded because the offenses arose from one unbroken course of conduct.
The petitioner was charged with violating provisions of the Harrison Narcotic Act, c. 1, § 1, 38 Stat. 785, as amended by c. 18, § 1006, 40 Stat. 1057, 1131, and c. 1, § 2, 38 Stat. 785, 786, as amended. The indictment contained five counts. The jury returned a verdict against petitioner upon the second, third and fifth counts only. Each of these counts charged a sale of morphine hydrochloride to the same purchaser. The second count charged a sale on a specified day of ten grains of the drug not in or from the original stamped package. The third count charged a sale on the following day of eight grains of the drug not in or from the original stamped package. The fifth count charged the latter sale also as having been made not in pursuance of a written order of the purchaser as required by the statute. It appears from the evidence that shortly after delivery of the drug which was the subject of the first sale, the purchaser paid for an additional quantity, which was delivered the next day. The first sale had been consummated, and the payment for the additional drug, however closely following, was the initiation of a separate and distinct sale completed by its delivery. The court sentenced petitioner to five years imprisonment and a fine of $2,000 upon each count, the terms of imprisonment to run consecutively. This judgment was affirmed on appeal.
View caseSeth Shapiro deliberately diverted a rideshare van and slammed the door on a passenger's arm before demanding the passenger's phone. The single sequence of acts supplied the force element for robbery and demonstrated the required culpable state throughout the continuous transaction.
The National Firearms Act imposes strict registration requirements on statutorily defined firearms, including machineguns. A machinegun is defined as any weapon which shoots, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. In 1986, Congress amended the Act to criminalize the mere possession of an unregistered machinegun, a violation punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment. In 1989, local police and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents executed a search warrant at petitioner Steven Staples' home and recovered an AR-15 rifle. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle and is manufactured with a metal stop on its receiver to prevent conversion to automatic fire. On Staples' rifle, however, the stop had been filed away, and the weapon had been assembled with an M-16 selector switch and several other M-16 internal parts, including a hammer, disconnector, and trigger. BATF agents tested the rifle and confirmed that it fired more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger. It was undisputed that the weapon was not registered as required by the statute. Staples maintained that the rifle had never been modified to fire automatically and that he had no knowledge that it was capable of doing so. At trial, he requested the District Court to instruct the jury that the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the gun would fire fully automatically. The District Court rejected that request. Instead, it charged the jury that the Government need only prove the defendant knew he was dealing with a dangerous device of a type as would alert one to the likelihood of regulation. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the court sentenced Staples to five years' probation and a $5,000 fine. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals concerning the mens rea requirement under the statute.
View caseSolomon Silver was stopped by police who used excessive force during an arrest that began with a traffic violation and ended with an unlawful search of his vehicle. The entire sequence constituted one transaction supporting a single federal civil rights action.
On October 29, 1958, at approximately 5:45 a.m., thirteen Chicago police officers entered the apartment of James Monroe and his family without a search warrant or arrest warrant. The officers roused the Monroes from bed using flashlights and forced them at gunpoint to stand naked in the living room while ransacking every room, emptying drawers, and ripping mattress covers. Detective Pape struck Mr. Monroe several times with his flashlight and called him "nigger" and "black boy." Other officers hit and kicked several of the children and pushed them to the floor. Mr. Monroe was then taken to the police station and detained on open charges for ten hours. During this period he was interrogated about a murder, exhibited in lineups, and not permitted to call his family or attorney, although he was not brought before a magistrate despite their availability. He was released without any criminal charges being filed against him. The complaint alleged that these actions occurred under color of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs, and usages of Illinois and Chicago, and that the City had no rules or controls over its police officers, permitting them to act without restraint. The Monroes claimed deprivations of rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and sought compensatory and punitive damages from the officers and the City. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseMerger applies when the misdemeanor formed part of the conduct constituting the felony and both arose from the same act or transaction. The doctrine prevents multiple convictions for what amounts to a single integrated criminal episode.
Supporting sources
No. When the same act or series of acts forming a single transaction satisfies the elements of multiple felonies, none merges into the others and each remains legally distinct.
Supporting sources
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(a) permits joinder when the offenses are of the same or similar character, are based on the same act or transaction, or are connected with or constitute parts of a common scheme or plan.
Supporting sources
Rule 8(b) allows two or more defendants to be charged together if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses.
Supporting sources
…absolute separation. Rev. Stat. § 1024, 18 U. S. C. § 557, provides: “When there are several charges against any person for the same act or transaction, or for two or more acts or transactions connected together, or for two or more acts or transactions of the same class of crimes or offenses, which may be properly joined, instead of having…