...bar to a subsequent conviction or sentence under another depends, not on whether defendant bas heon tried for the same act, but whether he has been put In jeopardy for the identical offense. Ryan v. US (CCA 1914), 21G Fed. 13. Sufficiency of facts charged In second prosecution...

...support a conviction upon one of them would have been sufficient to warrant a conviction upon the other. The test is not, whether the defendant has already...does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other." (p. 434.) We...

...vehicle while intoxicated. The two offenses are entirely separate. We find this doctrine in the books. A single act may be an offense against two statutes,...and, if each statute requires proof of an additional act which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant...

...supreme court of Michigan, in dealing with the plea of once in jcopardy, sets forth the following test: "The test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act, but whether fie has been put in jeopardy for the same offense. A single act may be an offense against two statutes;...

...support a conviction upon one of them would have been sufficient to warrant a conviction upon the other. The test is not whether the defendant has already...does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other." (See also US...

...the crime of robbery. ( VS vs. Chan-CunChay, 5 Phil. Rep., 385; US rs. Flemister, 5 Phil. Rep., 050.) A single act may be an offense against two statutes,...does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution or conviction under the other. (In re Neilsen,...

...support a conviction upon one of them would have been sufficient to warrant a conviction upon the other. The test is not whether the defendant has already...been put in jeopardy for the same offense. A single United States vs. Joson. act may be an offense against two statutes; and if each statute requires proof...

...elements of each offense, rather than on the actual evidence to be presented at trial. Thus we stated that if " 'each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not,' Morey v. Commonwealth, 108 Mass. 433, 434 (1871)," the offenses are not the same under the Blockburger...

...evidence to T)e presented at trial. Thus [in Brown v. Ohio, 432 US 161, 166 (1977),] we stated that if 'each statute requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not,' . . . the offenses are not the same under the Blockburger test." Id., at 416. quoting 432 US, at 166...

...Commonwealth 5I The Supreme Court of the State of Massachusetts held: A single act may be an offence against two statutes: and if each statute requires...does not, an acquittal or conviction under either statute does not exempt the defendant from prosecution and punishment under the other. Subsequently...