When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this state and of the United States or another state or territory of the United States, a prosecution in any such other jurisdiction is an affirmative defense to a subsequent prosecution in this state under the following circumstances: (1) The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as set out in § 5-1-112 , and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct unless: (A) The offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he or she is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other offense and the law defining each offense is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or (B) The second offense was not consummated when the former trial began; or (2) The former prosecution was terminated by an acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant that has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated and that required a determination inconsistent with a fact that must be established for the conviction of the offense for which the defendant is subsequently prosecuted. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 108; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-108. When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this state and of the United States or another state or territory of the United States, a prosecution in any such other jurisdiction is an affirmative defense to a subsequent prosecution in this state under the following circumstances: (1) The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as set out in § 5-1-112 , and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct unless: (A) The offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he or she is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other offense and the law defining each offense is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or (B) The second offense was not consummated when the former trial began; or (2) The former prosecution was terminated by an acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant that has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated and that required a determination inconsistent with a fact that must be established for the conviction of the offense for which the defendant is subsequently prosecuted. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 108; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-108. When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this state and of the United States or another state or territory of the United States, a prosecution in any such other jurisdiction is an affirmative defense to a subsequent prosecution in this state under the following circumstances: (1) The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as set out in § 5-1-112 , and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct unless: (A) The offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he or she is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other offense and the law defining each offense is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or (B) The second offense was not consummated when the former trial began; or (2) The former prosecution was terminated by an acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant that has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated and that required a determination inconsistent with a fact that must be established for the conviction of the offense for which the defendant is subsequently prosecuted. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 108; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-108. When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this state and of the United States or another state or territory of the United States, a prosecution in any such other jurisdiction is an affirmative defense to a subsequent prosecution in this state under the following circumstances: (1) The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as set out in § 5-1-112 , and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct unless: (A) The offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he or she is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other offense and the law defining each offense is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or (B) The second offense was not consummated when the former trial began; or (A) The offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he or she is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other offense and the law defining each offense is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or (B) The second offense was not consummated when the former trial began; or (2) The former prosecution was terminated by an acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant that has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated and that required a determination inconsistent with a fact that must be established for the conviction of the offense for which the defendant is subsequently prosecuted. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 108; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-108.
‹ Prev All Arkansas sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.