Also known as: same offence · same-offense
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrinal test used to determine whether two criminal charges are sufficiently identical to trigger the Fifth Amendment prohibition against multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense. The test focuses on whether each offense requires proof of an element the other does not.
Samuel Soto faced federal charges for a capital offense. After a jury was empaneled and sworn the government attempted a second proceeding on the identical conduct. The court invoked the same-offense protection and dismissed the action.
Simon Stern was prosecuted first for possession of a controlled substance and later for distribution arising from the same transaction. Because each statute required an element the other did not, the court held the charges were not the same offense and allowed both prosecutions to proceed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Selena Singh stood trial for theft before a jury that was empaneled and sworn. After the judge discharged the panel without manifest necessity, the court ruled that jeopardy had attached and barred retrial for the same offense.
Sasha Stone was convicted of conspiracy based on several overt acts. When the government later sought to prosecute her for a substantive offense arising from one of those same acts, the court examined whether the charges constituted the same offense under the indictment correspondence rule.
Samantha Stone was charged as an accomplice to robbery. After acquittal on that charge, the state attempted to bar her testimony in a codefendant's trial for the identical robbery. The court recognized that acquittal prevented further prosecution for the same offense and allowed the testimony.
Skylar Sullivan received a life sentence without parole for a series of nonviolent offenses. On review the court compared that penalty to sentences imposed for the same offense in other jurisdictions to assess whether the punishment was grossly disproportionate.
The test asks whether each statutory provision requires proof of an additional fact that the other does not. If both offenses can be proved by the same set of facts without an extra element, they constitute the same offense for double jeopardy purposes.
Supporting sources
Jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn. After that point the defendant is protected against retrial for the same offense unless the first proceeding ends in a manner consistent with double jeopardy principles such as manifest necessity.
Supporting sources
Not automatically. Under the same-elements test the later charge proceeds if each offense requires proof of an element the other does not, even when the underlying facts overlap.
Supporting sources
No. A state and its municipalities are not separate sovereigns, so successive prosecutions by both for the same offense violate double jeopardy.
Supporting sources
Retrial for the same offense is barred because the defendant has already been placed in jeopardy and the proceeding did not end in a manner that permits reprosecution.
Supporting sources
…jurors by the government improperly sustained ? 4. Was the testimony of Amelia Jane Schofield, given at a former trial for the same offence, but under another indictment, improperly admitted in evidence ? 5. Should the accused have been acquitted if he married the second time, because he believed it to be his religious…