ÿWPC×* B# ¬ %· 0 P½UF w@S4“§ 0”¶ 0DJ 0JŽØ 0Tà B4UFQ 0^— 0hõ 0r] 0|Ï BK AQh ƹ 0D 0@à 0D 0†G D/Í D3ü 0/ 1u¿ 0d4 U 6˜ B)Î DC÷ AM:U*‡ ±HÑ–¯‹¿ËJA0V"v~†#vÓ%˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎX((Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóOther€conduct€supporting€the€contempt€conviction€included:€Ïthreats€to€Ms.€Winninghamððs€life,€trespass€upon€her€property,€andÏshots€fired€at€her€car.Ì ŒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€36„3„610€(1991)€provides:€€ð ðUponÏviolation€of€the€order€of€protection€.€.€.€the€court€may€hold€theÏdefendant€in€civil€or€criminal€contempt€and€punish€him€inÏaccordance€with€the€law.ðð€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€29„9„105Ï(1980)€provides:€€ð ðIf€the€contempt€consists€in€the€performance€ofÏa€forbidden€act,€the€person€may€be€imprisoned€until€the€act€isÏrectified€by€placing€matters€and€person€in€statu€quo€[sic],€or€byÏthe€payment€of€damages.ðð€€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€29„9„103€(Supp.€1993)€provides:€€ÌÌà8 à(a)€€The€punishment€for€contempt€may€be€by€fine€or€byÏimprisonment,€or€both.Ìà8 à(b)€€Where€not€otherwise€specially€provided,€theÏcircuit,€chancery,€and€appellate€courts€are€limited€to€aÏfine€of€fifty€dollars€($50.00),€and€imprisonment€notÏexceeding€ten€(10)€days€.€.€.€.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóOur€òòBlockburgeróó€analysis€is€guided€by€òòUnited€States€v.€Dixonóó,Ï509€U.S.€688,€113€S.€Ct.€2849,€125€L.€Ed.2d€556€(1993).€€In€òòDixonóó,Ïthe€United€States€Supreme€Court€held€that€double€jeopardyÏprotection€attaches€to€nonsummary€criminal€contempt€proceedings€inÏthe€same€way€it€attaches€to€other€criminal€prosecutions.€ÏNonsummary€contempt€proceedings€address€contemptuous€conductÏoccurring€outside€of€the€courtððs€presence.€€As€such,€the€contemptÏhearing€is€usually€conducted€before€a€different€judge€at€a€dateÏsubsequent€to€the€conduct.€€In€contrast,€summary€contempt€refersÏto€misbehavior€occurring€in€the€presence€of€the€court,€which€theÏcourt€addresses€immediately.€€This€court€has€previously€held€thatÏimposing€two€punishments€for€the€same€offense€through€òòsummaryóóÏcontempt€and€a€criminal€prosecution€does€not€violate€doubleÏjeopardy€principles.€€òòMaples€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€202,€203€(Tenn.€Ï1978).€€The€instant€case€involves€nonsummary€contempt€proceedings.Ì ÁÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóPrior€to€òòDixonóó,€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€also€includedÏthe€ð ðsame„conductðð€test€in€the€double€jeopardy€analysis:€€if,€toÏestablish€an€essential€element€of€an€offense,€the€government€willÏprove€conduct€that€constitutes€another€offense€for€which€theÏdefendant€has€already€been€prosecuted,€the€second€prosecutionÏviolates€double€jeopardy.€€òòGrady€v.€Cortinóó,€495€U.S.€508,€510,€109ÏL.€Ed.2d€548,€557,€110€S.€Ct.€2084,€2087€(1990).€€The€òòDixonóóÏmajority,€however,€explicitly€overruled€òòGradyóó,€leaving€òòBlockburgeróóÏas€the€sole€measure€of€federal€double€jeopardy€violations.€€òòDixonóó,Ï509€U.S.€at€704,€113€S.€Ct.€at€2806,€125€L.€Ed.2d€at€573.€€Thus,Ïcourts€are€no€longer€required€to€determine€whether€bothÏprosecutions€were€based€on€the€same€underlying€conduct.Ì 7Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóJustice€Scalia,€joined€by€Justice€Kennedy,€proffered€theÏfirst€approach,€a€òòBlockburgeróó€analysis€modified€to€fit€the€contextÏof€a€contempt€proceeding€followed€by€a€prosecution€for€theÏunderlying€substantive€offense.€€Chief€Justice€Rehnquist,€joinedÏby€Justice€OððConnor€and€Justice€Thomas,€proffered€the€secondÏapproach,€a€traditional€òòBlockburgeróó€analysis.€€The€third€opinion,Ïwritten€by€Justice€White,€and€the€fifth€opinion,€written€byÏJustice€Souter,€are€arguably€the€least€viable€approaches€in€lightÏof€the€majority€decision€to€overrule€òòGradyóó.€€Both€utilized€aÏòòGradyóó„type€analysis€of€the€conduct€at€issue,€rather€than€focusingÏon€the€statutory€elements€of€each€offense,€and€concluded€that€allÏthe€subsequent€prosecutions€violated€double€jeopardy.€€Writing€theÏfourth€opinion€separately,€Justice€Blackmun€found€no€doubleÏjeopardy€violations€without€actually€applying€òòBlockburgeróó.€Ì &Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóDefendant€Dixon€was€actually€subject€to€a€release€order.€ÏòòDixonóó,€509€U.S.€at€698,€113€S.€Ct.€at€2857,125€L.Ed.2d€at€565.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€3ÔÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÝ  ÝÙ€!ÙÓ  ÓÑ Œ ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œßR€685A1-j|j` ‚- `€€@ÿRß›Þ ÞÌÌÌà@ àœIN›€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE€€€€€€€€€€€à à)€€€FOR€PUBLICATIONÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€FILED:€€DECEMBER€29,€1997Ìà àAppellantà àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€PICKETT€COUNTYÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€HON.€LEON€BURNS,€JR.,ÌBILLY€O.€WINNINGHAMà àà àà à)à à€€€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ì€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à à)€€€NO.€œ01„S„01„9701„CC„00008›Ì€€€€€Appelleeà àà àà à€€€€€)ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Appelleeóó:òòà àà àà àà àà àFor€Appellantóó:ÌÌPHILLIPS€M.€SMALLINGà àà àà àJOHN€KNOX€WALKUPÌByrdstown,€TNà àà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMICHAEL€E.€MOOREà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSolicitor€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDARYL€J.€BRANDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TNÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€E.€GIBSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àANTHONY€W.€HUDDLESTONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€AttorneyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLivingston,€TNÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌà@ àòòOPINIONÌÌóóœÌÌÌ›ÌJUDGMENT€REVERSED;€INDICTMENT€REINSTATED€€à àà àà àBIRCH,€J.€€ÇÑ7€ËVXXdÖXXdÖ7ÑÓÓà àà àBilly€O.€Winningham,€the€appellee,€was€adjudicated€inÏcontempt€of€court€for€having€violated€an€order€of€protectionÏissued€at€the€request€of€his€estranged€wife.€€The€contemptuousÏconduct€alleged€included€setting€the€fire€that€burned€down€hisÏwifeððs€house.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€This€same€conduct€also€served€as€the€basis€for€anÏarson€indictment€later€returned€against€him.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court,€upon€the€appelleeððs€motion,€dismissedÏthe€indictment€on€double€jeopardy€grounds;€the€Court€of€CriminalÏAppeals€affirmed€that€judgment.€€We€granted€the€StateððsÏapplication€for€review€under€Rule€11,€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.,€in€orderÏto€determine€whether€the€double€jeopardy€provisions€of€the€UnitedÏStates€and€Tennessee€Constitutions€bar€a€subsequent€criminalÏprosecution€when€the€conduct€underlying€the€charge€in€theÏindictment€also€served€as€the€evidentiary€basis€for€an€earlierÏcontempt€conviction.€€Because€arson€and€contempt€are,€in€theÏcontext€presented,€significantly€different€offenses€under€doubleÏjeopardy€analyses,€we€find€no€double€jeopardy€violation€here€andÏreverse€the€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals.ÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àà àThe€protective€order€in€question€was€entered€on€OctoberÏ15,€1993,€by€the€Circuit€Court€of€Pickett€County€in€the€matter€ofÏòòMary€S.€€Winningham€v.€Billy€O.€€Winninghamóó.€€It€provided:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà8 àthe€respondent€is€enjoined€fromÏcoming€about€petitioner€[Ms.ÏWinningham]€for€any€purpose€andÏspecifically€from€abusing,Ïthreatening€to€abuse€petitioner,€orÏcommitting€any€acts€of€violence€uponÏpetitioner€upon€penalty€of€contempt.€€ÌÓÓÌà àà àOn€November€19,€1993,€Ms.€Winninghamððs€house€burned,€andÏthe€appellee€was€arrested€and€incarcerated€the€same€day€on€aÏcontempt€charge€for€violation€of€the€protective€order.€€OnÏNovember€23,€1993,€the€trial€court€held€a€hearing€on€the€contemptÏcharge€and€found€the€appellee€guilty€of€civil€and€criminalÏcontempt.€€The€trial€court€delineated€the€factual€basis€for€itsÏruling:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà8 àThe€proof€in€this€case€satisfies€theÏCourt€both€by€a€preponderance€of€theÏevidence€for€civil€contempt€andÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt€forÏcriminal€contempt€that€the€defendantÍdid€in€fact€violate€this€order.€€IððmÏsatisfied€that€the€proof,€by€bothÏdirect€and€circumstantial€evidence,Ïindicates€that€the€defendantÏthreatened€Ms.€Winninghamððs€life€onÏthe€telephone,€that€he€came€aroundÏthere,€that€he€came€back€onto€theÏback€porch€and€cut€the€wires.€€IððmÏsatisfied€that€by€direct€andÏcircumstantial€evidence€that€he€cameÏback€to€the€property€and€set€theÏfire€that€led€to€this€house€beingÏburned€down.€€ÌÌà8 àà8 àà8 àThe€Court€finds€in€this€case€thatÏthe€aggrieved€party€has€sufferedÏdamages€in€the€burning€of€her€homeÏand€in€the€shooting€of€her€car,€bothÏof€which€in€the€Courtððs€opinion,€andÏthe€Court€finds€both€by€aÏpreponderance€of€the€evidence€andÏbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€was€atÏthe€hand€of€the€defendant.€€€€ÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€trial€court€imposed€punishment€for€both€civilÏcontempt€and€criminal€contempt,€pursuant€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€36„3„610€(1991)€and€29„9„105€(1980).× ƒ: ××  ×€€The€order€of€civil€contempt€wasÏvacated€on€January€24,€1994.€€As€of€that€date,€the€appellee€hadÍbeen€incarcerated€longer€than€the€maximum€sentence€allowable€forÏcriminal€contempt€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„9„103€(Supp.€1993).× ƒ; ××  ×€€€€€€Ìà àà àOn€January€3,€1994,€the€appellee€was€indicted€for€arsonÏin€the€alleged€burning€of€Ms.€Winninghamððs€house.€€The€CriminalÏCourt€of€Pickett€County€found€that€the€trial€courtððs€priorÏcontempt€judgment€was€based€on€the€same€facts€upon€which€the€arsonÏindictment€had€been€grounded.€€Consequently,€the€court€dismissedÏthe€arson€indictment€on€double€jeopardy€grounds,€and€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€dismissal.€€ÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àà àBecause€this€appeal€presents€a€question€of€law,€ourÏreview€is€de€novo€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€òòState€v.ÏDavisóó,€940€S.W.2d€558,€561€(Tenn.€1997.€€The€œDouble›€œJeopardy›ÏœClause›€of€the€Fifth€Amendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution,Íapplicable€to€the€states€through€the€Fourteenth€Amendment,Ïprovides€that€no€person€shall€ð ðbe€subject€for€the€same€offense€toÏbe€twice€put€in€jeopardy€of€life€or€limb€.€.€.€.ðð€€Article€1,€ðð€10Ïof€the€Tennessee€Constitution€provides€that€ð ðno€person€shall,€forÏthe€same€offence,€be€twice€put€in€jeopardy€of€life€or€limb.ðð€€AsÏwe€have€stated€many€times,€three€fundamental€principles€underlieÏdouble€jeopardy:€€(1)€protection€against€a€second€prosecutionÏafter€an€acquittal;€€(2)€protection€against€a€second€prosecutionÏafter€conviction;€€and€(3)€protection€against€multiple€punishmentsÏfor€the€same€offense.€€òòState€v.€Dentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€373,€378€(Tenn.Ï1996)€(citing,€among€others,€òòNorth€Carolina€v.€Pearceóó,€395€U.S.Ï711,€717,€89€S.€Ct.€2072,€2076,€23€L.€Ed.2d€656,€664„65€(1969)).ÌÌà àà àUnder€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€this€Court€inquiresÏfurther€than€do€federal€courts€in€determining€whether€a€defendantÏhas€been€unconstitutionally€subjected€to€double€prosecution€forÏthe€same€conduct.€€According€to€òòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€381,Ïresolution€of€a€double€jeopardy€issue€requires€the€following:ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà8 à(1)€a€òòBlockburgeróó€analysis€of€theÏstatutory€offenses;€€(2)€anÏanalysis,€guided€by€the€principlesÏof€òòDuchacóó,€of€the€evidence€used€toÏprove€the€offenses;€€(3)€aÍconsideration€of€whether€there€wereÏmultiple€victims€or€discrete€acts;€Ïand€€(4)€a€comparison€of€theÏpurposes€of€the€respective€statutes.€ÏNone€of€these€steps€isÏdeterminative;€rather€the€results€ofÏeach€must€be€weighed€and€consideredÏin€relation€to€each€other.€€ÌÓÓÌÌÌà@ àAÌÌà àà àThus,€we€begin€with€the€first€òòDentonóó€factor,€an€analysisÏunder€the€test€established€in€òòBlockburger€v.€United€Statesóó,€284ÏU.S.€299,€304,€52€S.€Ct.€180,€182,€76€L.€Ed.€306,€309€(1932).œ× ƒ< ××  ×›€€InÏthe€context€of€both€double€punishment€and€double€prosecutionÍcases,€the€subject€offenses€must€survive€the€òòBlockburgeróó€ð ðsame„elementsðð€test€in€order€to€œsatisfy›€the€requirements€of€the€DoubleÏJeopardy€Clause.€€òòUnited€States€v.€Dixonóó,€509€U.S.€688,€696,€113ÏS.€Ct.€2849,€2856,€125€L.€Ed.2d€556,€568€(1993).€€This€test€asksÏð ðwhether€each€offense€contains€an€element€not€contained€in€theÏother;€if€not,€they€are€the€ððsame€offenceðð€and€double€jeopardyÏbars€additional€punishment€and€successive€prosecution.ðð€€òòId.óó× ƒ= ××  ×€€€ÌÌà àà àòòDixonóó€included€appeals€by€Alvin€Dixon€and€MichaelÏFoster;€their€cases€were€consolidated€on€appeal.€€Dixon€wasÏreleased€under€an€order€which€specified€that€the€commission€ofÏð ðany€criminal€offenseðð€could€subject€him€to€prosecution€forÏcontempt€of€court.€€While€on€bond€under€the€release€order,€he€wasÏindicted€for€a€felony€drug€offense.€€This€indictment€triggeredÍDixonððs€conviction€for€criminal€contempt€of€court€for€violation€ofÏthe€release€order.ÌÌà àà àThe€other€defendant,€Foster,€consented€to€a€protectionÏorder€obtained€by€his€estranged€wife.€€This€order€required€that€heÏnot€ð ðmolest,€assault,€or€in€any€manner€threaten€or€physicallyÏabuseðð€his€wife.€€Alleging€several€episodes€of€assaults€andÏthreats,€his€wife€filed€three€motions€to€have€Foster€held€inÏcontempt.€€The€court€held€a€hearing€and€found€him€guilty€ofÏcriminal€contempt€for€violation€of€the€order.€€Subsequently,€heÏwas€indicted€on€three€counts€of€threatening€to€injure,€one€countÏof€simple€assault,€and€one€count€of€assault€with€intent€to€kill.€ÏAll€five€counts€were€based€on€episodes€for€which€he€was€eitherÏacquitted€or€convicted€in€the€previous€contempt€hearing.€€ÌÌà àà àOn€appeal,€each€defendant€contended€that€prosecutionÏunder€his€respective€indictment€constituted€a€second€prosecutionÏfor€the€same€offense„„the€first€having€been€the€contemptÏconviction.€€This€procedure,€they€asserted,€violated€doubleÏjeopardy€principles.€€òòId.óó€at€691„93,€2853„55,€564„66.ÌÌà àà àA€majority€of€the€òòDixonóó€Court€disagreed€about€theÏapplication€of€the€òòBlockburgeróó€test€to€the€facts€described€above.€ÏAs€a€result,€not€one€of€the€five€separate€approaches€in€òòDixonóóÏgained€support€sufficient€to€constitute€a€majority€view.× ƒ> ××  ×€€ÌÌà àà àNevertheless,€in€the€matter€under€review,€the€Court€ofÏCriminal€Appeals€adopted€Justice€Scaliaððs€approach€to€theÏòòBlockburgeróó€test€and€concluded€that€the€arson€indictment€violatedÏdouble€jeopardy€principles.€€Under€Scaliaððs€approach,€the€languageÏof€a€court€order€may,€but€does€not€always,€ð ðincorporateðð€statutoryÏoffenses€into€the€order.€€If€an€offense€is€deemed€to€have€beenÏð ðincorporated,ðð€then€application€of€double€jeopardy€principlesÏwould€permit€but€one€prosecution,€which€could€be€for€either€theÍcontempt€of€court€or€the€incorporated€offense„„whichever€one€wasÏfirst€prosecuted.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€rationale€is€that€when€the€underlying€offense€isÏincorporated€into€the€order,€it€becomes€an€element€of€contempt.€ÏAs€an€element€of€contempt,€the€underlying€offense€involved€must€beÏincluded€in€the€òòBlockburgeróó€analysis.€€In€effect,€the€underlyingÏoffense€becomes€a€lesser„included€offense€of€contempt.€ÏConsequently,€œ›the€underlying€offense€does€not€have€an€element€notÏcontained€in€the€contempt€offenseœ,€and€subsequent€prosection€forÏthe€underlying€offense€violates€double€jeopardy€principles€underÏòòBlockburgeróó.€€òòId.óó€at€697„98,€2856„57,€569„70.€ÌÌà àà àAs€a€result€of€the€ð ðincorporationðð€approach,€the€outcomeÏof€a€case€would€necessarily€depend€on€the€language€of€the€order€atÏissue,€and€the€consequence€of€such€dependence€is€not€easilyÏpredictable.€€According€to€Justice€Scalia,€the€language€of€theÏprotective€order€prohibiting€Foster€from€assaulting€or€threateningÏhis€wife€did€not€incorporate€all€criminal€statutes€concerningÏassaults€and€threats.€€òòId.óó€at€700„02,€2858„59,€570„72.€€InÏcontrast,€the€language€of€the€order€prohibiting€Dixon€fromÍcommitting€criminal€offenses€òòdidóó€incorporate€all€criminalÏstatutes.€€òòId.óó€at€698,€2857,€569.€€The€result€of€this€approach€isÏnot€one€that€is€readily€predictable€or€consistent.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€protective€order€issued€against€Winningham€enjoinedÏhim€from€ð ðcommitting€any€acts€of€violence€upon€petitioner.ðð€€ThisÏlanguage€varies€slightly€from€the€language€of€the€orders€issuedÏagainst€Foster€and€Dixon.€€Consequently,€application€of€theÏð ðincorporationðð€approach€to€the€protection€order€in€the€instantÏcase€is€unworkable.€€The€problem€with€the€ð ðincorporationðð€approachÏis€that€no€matter€how€carefully€protective€orders€may€be€crafted,Ïthey€may€nevertheless€incorporate€the€elements€of€a€criminalÏoffense€and€thereby€unwittingly€bar€subsequent€prosecution€for€theÏunderlying€offense„„a€result€certainly€not€intended.€ÌÌà àà àWe€find€that€Chief€Justice€Rehnquistððs€application€ofÏòòBlockburgeróó€is€better„reasoned€and€more€easily€adaptable€toÏTennessee€case€law.€€Under€this€approach,€protection€orders× ƒ? ××  ×›€do€notÏimplicitly€incorporate€the€statutory€elements€of€any€crime€intoÍthe€offense€of€contempt.€€The€òòBlockburgeróó€test€focuses€not€on€theÏterms€of€the€particular€order€involved,€but€on€the€statutoryÏelements€of€contempt€in€the€ordinary€sense.€€Further,€theÏunderlying€criminal€offense€is€not€viewed€as€a€lesser„includedÏoffense€because€it€is€not€òònecessarilyóó€included€within€theÏstatutory€elements€of€contempt.€€òòId.óó€at€716„20,€2867„68,€579„82Ï(Rehnquist,€C.J.,€concurring€and€dissenting).ÌÌà àà àCurrent€Tennessee€case€law€parallels€RehnquistððsÏapproach€to€the€double€jeopardy€issue€created€by€criminalÏprosecution€following€contempt€proceedings.€òòSeeóó€òòState€v.€Wycheóó,Ï914€S.W.2d€558,€560„61€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1995);€òòState€v.€Sammonsóó,Ï656€S.W.2d€862,€866„69€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€In€òòSammonsóó,€theÏdefendant€violated€an€order€awarding€custody€of€his€daughter€toÏhis€former€wife.€€The€violations€included€his€having€abducted€theÏdaughter€several€times;€he€was€cited€for€contempt€of€court€forÏthis€conduct.€€Subsequently,€he€was€indicted€on€charges€ofÏkidnaping€and€burglary€based€on€the€same€conduct€which€resulted€inÏhis€contempt€conviction.€€òòId.óó€at€864„66.ÌÌà àà àBecause€of€a€procedural€irregularity,€the€court€wasÏunable€to€determine€whether€a€double€jeopardy€violation€hadÏoccurred€in€that€case.€€òòId.óó€at€866.€€Nevertheless,€the€courtÏproceeded€to€find€that€under€òòBlockburgeróó€there€would€have€been€noÏdouble€jeopardy€bar€to€the€subsequent€prosecutions.€€òòId.óó€at€868.€ÏThe€court€based€its€finding€on€the€principle€that€contempt€andÏkidnaping€statutes€serve€entirely€different€purposes:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà8 àThe€purposes€of€the€general€statutesÏauthorizing€a€court€to€punish€forÏabuse€of€its€processes€and€thoseÏcreating€and€prescribing€punishmentÏfor€various€indictable€offenses€areÏso€entirely€different,€and€designedÏto€accomplish€such€wholly€differentÏpurposes,€that€we€do€not€find€anyÏviolation€of€constitutionalÏprinciples€in€imposing€punishmentÏupon€an€offender€under€both€sets€ofÏstatutes.€€€€€€€ÌÓÓÌòòId.óó€at€867€(quoting€òòMaples€v.€Stateóó,€565€S.W.2d€202€(Tenn.€1978).€€Ìà àà àThis€reasoning€represents€the€prevailing€view,€as€theÏòòSammonsóó€court€explained:€ÌÓÓÌà8 àà8 àà8 àThe€traditional€view€has€long€beenÏthat€ð ðformer€jeopardy€cannot€beÏinvoked€on€the€ground€the€same€actÏis€punishable€both€as€a€contempt€ofÏcourt€and€as€a€crime.ðð€€The€reasonÏunderlying€the€rule€is€a€recognitionÍthat€the€two€offenses€are€not€theÏsame€for€constitutional€purposes.€ÏThus,€the€courts€have€concluded,Ïð ðthe€fact€that€an€act€constituting€aÏcontempt€is€also€criminal€andÏpunishable€by€indictment€or€otherÏmethod€of€criminal€prosecution€doesÏnot€deprive€the€outraged€court€fromÏpunishing€the€contempt.ðð€€òòÌÓÓÌId.óó€at€868€(citations€omitted).€€Furthermore,€whether€the€sameÏconduct€can€be€subject€to€multiple€punishment€is€a€matter€ofÏlegislative€intent,€and€the€legislature€clearly€intended€that€theÏkidnaping€statute€and€the€contempt€statute€address€totallyÏseparate€and€independent€concerns.€€òòId.óó€at€869.€€€€€ÌÌà àà àApplying€Justice€Rehnquistððs€approach€to€the€instantÏcase,€we€find€that€the€arson€indictment€does€not€violate€federalÏdouble€jeopardy€principles.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€29„9„102(3)€(1980)€€provides€the€elements€of€contempt:€€(1)€willfulÏdisobedience€or€resistance€and€(2)€to€any€lawful€writ,€process,Ïorder,€rule,€decree,€or€command€of€said€courts.€€The€statutoryÏelements€of€arson,€however,€are€(1)€the€knowing€damage€of€anyÏstructure€by€means€of€a€fire€or€œexplosion,›€and€(2)€without€theÏconsent€of€all€persons€who€have€a€possessory,€proprietary,€orÏsecurity€interest€therein,€œòòoróó€(3)›€with€intent€to€damage€theÍstructure€to€collect€insurance€or€for€any€unlawful€purpose.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€39„14„301(a)€(1991).€€Clearly,€both€statutes€containÏelements€which€the€other€does€not;€in€fact,€they€have€no€commonÏelements.€€Thus,€application€of€the€òòBlockburgeróó€test€stronglyÏsuggests€that€the€legislature€intended€to€impose€separateÏpunishment€for€each€of€these€offenses.€€With€this€conclusion,€theÏanalysis€under€the€Double€Jeopardy€Clause€of€the€United€StatesÏConstitution€is€now€complete,€and€the€arson€indictment€withstandsÏfederal€constitutional€scrutiny.€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àBÌÌà àà àContinuing€the€inquiry€under€the€Double€Jeopardy€ClauseÏof€the€Tennessee€Constitution,€the€next€step€is€the€òòDuchacóóÏanalysis€of€the€evidence€used€to€prove€each€offense.€€If€the€sameÏevidence€is€not€required€to€prove€each€offense,€ð ðthen€the€factÏthat€both€charges€relate€to,€and€grow€out€of,€one€transaction,Ïdoes€not€make€a€single€offense€where€two€are€defined€by€theÏstatutes.ðð€€òòDentonóó,€938€S.W.2d€at€380€(quoting€òòDuchac€v.€Stateóó,Ï505€S.W.2d€237,€239€(Tenn.€1973)).€€The€particular€factsÏunderlying€each€case€must€be€examined€to€determine€whether€oneÍconviction€will€bar€the€other.€€òòId.óó€(quoting€òòDuchacóó,€505€S.W.2d€atÏ240).€€In€òòDentonóó,€because€defendant€Dentonððs€conduct€consisted€ofÏa€single€attack€on€a€single€victim,€this€Court€found€that€theÏcharges€of€aggravated€assault€and€attempted€voluntary€manslaughterÏnecessarily€relied€on€the€same€evidence.€€Thus,€application€ofÏòòDuchacóó€indicated€that€the€two€offenses€were€the€same€for€doubleÏjeopardy€purposes.€€òòId.óó€at€382.€€Ìà àà àIn€the€cause€before€us,€evidence€of€the€following€Ïconduct€formed€the€grounds€for€contempt:€€threats€to€Ms.ÏWinninghamððs€life,€trespass€upon€her€property,€shots€fired€at€herÏcar,€and€the€setting€of€the€fire€that€destroyed€her€house.€€TheÏhouse„burning€incident€served€also€as€the€grounds€for€the€arsonÏindictment.€€Thus,€in€order€to€prove€arson,€the€State€œmust€rely€onÏevidence€which€necessarily€includes€some€of€the€same€evidence€usedÏto€establish€the€appelleeððs€conduct€as€contemptuous.€€ÌÌà àà àWe€are€mindful€that€evidence€in€addition€to€the€arsonousÏconduct€supported€the€contempt€conviction.€€However,€the€variousÏacts€upon€which€the€contempt€conviction€was€based€are,€forÏpurposes€of€a€òòDuchacóó€analysis,€inseparable.€€We€cannot€ascertainÏwhether€any€one€of€the€factual€findings,€including€the€findingÍthat€the€appellee€burned€his€wifeððs€house,€was€truly€necessary€toÏestablish€contempt,€and€we€decline€to€speculate.€€In€sum,€theÏapplication€of€òòDuchacóó€principles€suggests€that€the€two€offenses€inÏthe€case€under€review€are€the€same€for€double€jeopardy€purposes.€€€€€€ÌÌà@ àCÌÌà àà àWe€now€turn€to€òòDentonððsóó€third€double€jeopardy€factor,Ïthe€consideration€of€whether€there€were€different€victims€orÏdiscrete€acts.€€The€charges€of€contempt€and€arson€both€involve€theÏsame€act€of€burning€a€house.€€However,€the€contempt€conviction€wasÏalso€based€on€other€discrete€acts,€such€as€threats€and€trespass.€ÏSecond,€different€victims€are€involved.€€In€general€terms,Ïcriminal€conduct€offends€the€State€as€the€sovereign.€€AlsoÏoffended€by€arson€would€be€the€owner€of€the€structure€and,Ïperhaps,€the€community„at„large.€€In€contrast,€ð ððð[t]he€proceedingÏin€contempt€is€for€an€offense€òòagainst€the€court€as€an€organ€ofÏpublic€justiceóó,€and€not€for€violation€of€the€criminal€law.ðððð€ÏòòSammonsóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€868€(quoting€òòState€v.€Howellóó,€69€A.€1057,Ï1058€(Conn.€1908))€(emphasis€added).€€Thus,€the€court€and€theÏjudicial€process€are€ð ðvictimsðð€of€the€act€of€contempt.€€The€factÍthat€different€victims€are€involved€suggests€that€separateÏprosecutions€would€not€violate€double€jeopardy€principles€underÏthe€Tennessee€Constitution.ÌÌà@ àDÌÌà àà àThe€fourth€and€final€step€under€òòDentonóó€requires€anÏanalysis€of€the€purposes€sought€to€be€accomplished€by€theÏenactment€of€each€of€the€two€statutes.€€Here,€the€arson€statuteÏand€the€contempt€statute€serve€vastly€dissimilar€purposes.€ÏObviously,€the€prohibition€against€arson€is€intended€to€deter€theÏdestruction€of€property€and€the€endangerment€of€human€life.€€InÏmarked€contrast,€the€offense€of€contempt€of€court€has€as€itsÏpurposes€the€maintenance€of€the€integrity€of€court€orders€and€theÏvindication€of€the€courtððs€authority.€€òòDixonóó,€509€U.S.€at€742,€113ÏS.€Ct.€at€2880,€€125€L.€Ed.2d€at€597„98€(Blackmun,€J.,€concurringÏand€dissenting);€òòSammonsóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€869.€€So€essential€is€thisÏpurpose€to€the€proper€functioning€of€the€court€that€even€erroneousÏorders€must€be€obeyed.€€òòId.óó€€The€fact€that€the€two€statutes€serveÏvastly€different€purposes€suggests€that€separate€prosecutionsÍwould€not€violate€double€jeopardy€principles€under€our€stateÏconstitution.ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àà àTo€summarize,€through€our€analyses€under€òòDentonóó€we€haveÏfound€both€similarities€and€significant€differences€between€theÏcrime€of€contempt€and€arson,€as€presented€in€the€context€of€thisÏcase.€€In€the€final€analysis,€we€conclude€that€the€òòDentonóó€factorsÏweigh€in€favor€of€allowing€the€prosecution€for€arson€to€follow€theÏappelleeððs€contempt€conviction.€€Concededly,€because€the€contemptÏconviction€and€arson€indictment€both€involve€the€same€act€ofÏburning€Ms.€Winninghamððs€house,€some€of€the€same€evidence€used€toÏprove€contempt€may€also€be€used€to€prove€arson.€€This€merelyÏunderscores€the€similarity€of€the€two€offenses€under€òòDuchacóó.€ÏHowever,€the€vast€differences€in€the€elements€of€each€statute,€theÏvictims€of€each€statute,€and€the€purposes€of€each€statuteÏdemonstrate€the€legislatureððs€intent€to€allow€separate€punishmentÏfor€both€arson€and€contempt.€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€theÏprosecution€for€arson,€in€the€context€of€the€facts€andÍcircumstances€here€presented,€does€not€violate€the€Double›€œJeopardy›ÏœClause›€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€ÌÌà àà àIn€conclusion,€neither€the€œDouble›€œJeopardy›€œClause›€of€theÏUnited€States€Constitution€nor€œthat€of€the›€Tennessee€ConstitutionÏbars€separate€proceedings€and€punishments€for€contempt€and€theÏsubstantive€offense€underlying€the€contempt.€€The€judgment€of€theÏCourt€of€Criminal€Appeals€is€reversed,€and€the€indictment€forÏarson€is€reinstated.€€Costs€of€this€cause€are€taxed€against€theÏappellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àADOLPHO€A.€BIRCH,€JR.,€JusticeÌÌÌCONCUR:€€ÌAnderson,€C.J.ÌDrowota,€Reid,€Holder,€JJ.