Whether the 'same elements' test adequately protects against multiple punishments for 'the same offence'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Whether the “same elements” test articulated in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), adequately protects individuals from multiple punishments for “the same offence.” 2. Petitioner Begay was acquitted of multiple charges based on a finding that he acted in self-defense. He was convicted of reckless child abuse on the basis of the identical act that was found to be both unitary and justifiable as self-defense—viz., shooting at his assailant and unintentionally hitting a child in the leg. Does the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause permit this?