NCJ Number
109466
Journal
Villanova Law Review Volume: 31 Issue: 5 Dated: (September 1986) Pages: 1351-1428
Date Published
1986
Length
78 pages
Annotation
This article examines the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's resolution of the multiple penalty issue in Ball v. United States (1985).
Abstract
As a basic proposition, a defendant is protected against multiple punishment only when multiple penalties are imposed pursuant to statutes that define the same offense. This article analyzes how to decide which penalties are 'multiple' and thus forbidden when based on the same offense. In 'Ball,' the Court held that multiple convictions are always multiple penalties if Congress did not intend two criminal statutes to apply to the same conduct. This holding is based on statutory construction with no mention of the fifth amendment, so it is unclear what impact the 'Ball' decision will have on the disparate State court approaches to the multiple penalty problem. Further, the Court decided the issue without acknowledging the confusion in earlier relevant Supreme Court opinions and made no attempt to reconcile 'Ball's' result with these earlier cases. In examining these issues, this article concludes that 'Ball' implicitly overruled at least one earlier Supreme Court holding ('Jeffers'), that 'Ball' requires almost all Federal circuit courts to change their sentencing procedures, and that 'Ball' is binding on State courts because it is implicitly based on the fifth amendment double jeopardy clause. 358 footnotes.