In the case of Texas v. Raymond Levi Cobb, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that burglary and home invasion are two separate offenses under the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause. The defendant, Raymond Levi Cobb, confessed to a burglary in 1993 but was later also charged with home invasion related to the same incident when he admitted to it during a polygraph test in 1997. He argued that this violated his protection against double jeopardy as both charges stemmed from one event. However, the court disagreed stating that each offense required proof of an additional fact which other did not - for burglary it was entering a building without consent and for home invasion it was committing assault after entry - thus they were different crimes under Blockburger's "same-elements" test.

In the dissenting opinion for Texas v. Raymond Levi Cobb, Justice David Souter argued that the majority's decision to allow separate prosecutions for burglary and a subsequent crime committed during the same incident was inconsistent with previous rulings on double jeopardy. He contended that this ruling would lead to an arbitrary application of justice, as it could potentially allow prosecutors to bring multiple charges against defendants based on minor differences in their crimes' details. Furthermore, he criticized the court's reliance on statutory definitions rather than actual evidence when determining whether two offenses were part of the "same offense." This approach, he suggested, ignored practical realities and undermined protections against double jeopardy by allowing multiple punishments for essentially one criminal act.