Whether a criminal defendant may be convicted of contempt in two different courts for violating two separate orders of protection, where both convictions arise from the same incident.

No. The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits criminal prosecution for violating two separate orders of protection where neither statutory provision requires proof of additional facts that the other provision does not require.

Defendant's ex-wife obtained two separate orders of protection against him - one in Rochester City Court and the other in Monroe County Family Court. Defendant's ex-wife received five prank phone calls which were traced to Defendant, which violated the orders of protection. Defendant's ex-wife brought contempt proceedings in Family Court, where Defendant was found guilty and sentenced to six months incarceration. Defendant was then indicted in Rochester City Court for five counts each of first degree criminal contempt and second degree aggravated harassment. At trial, Defendant moved to dismiss, based on double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the prosecution's argument that double jeopardy did not apply, because each proceeding was based on a different order of protection, and Defendant was again found guilty. The Appellate Division reversed, and the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

The Court affirmed, explaining that the purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause is to prevent courts from imposing multiple criminal punishments for the same offense. Thus, under Blockburger v. United States, if an act violates two distinct statutory provisions, "the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not." 284 U.S. 299, 304. Also under Blockburger, a lesser included offense is considered the same as a greater offense, and thus the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits prosecution for a greater offense after conviction for a lesser included offense.

Based on this analysis, the Court held that Defendant could not be tried again in Rochester City Court for violating the separate order of protection, because both contempt violations arose from the same exact set of facts, and neither statutory provision required that additional facts be proven that the other did not require. The Court also found that the contempt provision of the Family Court statute was a lesser included offense of first degree criminal contempt. Finally, the Court explained that this use of the Double Jeopardy Clause does not undermine the purpose of the parallel statutes, which is to "stem[] the tide of domestic abuse between people locked in destructive relationships."