In the case of Harris v. Oklahoma, 1976, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant cannot be tried for both felony murder and robbery with firearms when the latter is an integral part of the former. The court held that this constituted double jeopardy - being prosecuted twice for essentially the same offense - which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to U.S. Constitution. In this case, Benjamin Franklin Harris was first convicted in state court for armed robbery and then later charged with felony murder based on his commission of that same robbery. The Supreme Court reversed his second conviction because it violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for Harris v. Oklahoma, Justice White disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn Harris' conviction on grounds of double jeopardy. He argued that there was a significant difference between felony murder and robbery with firearms, which justified separate charges and punishments. According to him, it was not enough that one crime (robbery) was a subset of another (felony murder). Instead, he believed each charge required proof of an additional fact which the other did not - in this case, death resulting from the commission of another felony such as robbery. Therefore, he concluded that both convictions should stand because they were not "the same offense" under Blockburger test standards used by courts to determine if two charges constitute double jeopardy.