Severance v. Commonwealth, 295 Va. 564

Charles Severance murdered three people (2003, 2013, 2014); two relevant counts charged capital murder under Va. Code § 18.2-31(8) for killings within a three-year period (Kirby 2013; Lodato 2014).
Commonwealth indicted and obtained convictions on separate capital-murder counts for each victim under § 18.2-31(8); jury recommended life for both counts and death penalty was waived.
Severance argued the imposition of separate capital sentences for the two § 18.2-31(8) convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause (multiple punishments for the same offense), invoking Blockburger principles.
Trial court and Court of Appeals rejected Severance’s double-jeopardy sentencing claim; Court of Appeals held each murder was a separate offense warranting separate punishment.
Virginia Supreme Court affirmed: statute authorizes separate convictions/punishments for separate murders occurring within three years; Blockburger inapplicable because this is two acts violating the same statute, not one act violating two statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether imposing separate capital punishments under Va. Code § 18.2-31(8) for two murders within a three-year period violates the Double Jeopardy Clause	Severance: two § 18.2-31(8) convictions amounted to multiple punishments for the same offense; court should limit punishment to one capital sentence (relying on Andrews principles)	Commonwealth: statute authorizes separate indictments/convictions for each murder; killings were separate acts so separate punishments do not violate double jeopardy; Blockburger test inapplicable	Held: No double jeopardy violation—separate murders are distinct criminal acts under the statute, permitting separate convictions and punishments; Blockburger not the correct test here

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (establishes test for same-offense analysis when one act implicates two statutes)
Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (legislative intent controls whether cumulative punishments are allowed)
Andrews v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 231 (held double jeopardy barred separate punishments when constituent murders occurred as part of the same act or transaction)
Buchanan v. Commonwealth, 238 Va. 389 (unit-of-prosecution for § 18.2-31(7) determined by number of acts or transactions)
Johnson v. Commonwealth, 292 Va. 738 (determine unit of prosecution by legislative intent)
Coleman v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 196 (double jeopardy bars twice punishing the same criminal act)
Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (double jeopardy does not prohibit multiple punishments for multiple offenses in a single prosecution)
Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (historical protection against multiple punishments)
Gray v. Warden of the Sussex I State Prison, 281 Va. 303 (explaining Andrews limitation)