ILCS » Chapter 720 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

720 ILCS 5/3-3 (2026)

Multiple prosecutions for same act

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(720 ILCS 5/3-3) (from Ch. 38, par. 3-3)
    Sec. 3-3. Multiple prosecutions for same act.
    (a) When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than one offense, the defendant may be prosecuted for each such offense.
    (b) If the several offenses are known to the proper prosecuting officer at the time of commencing the prosecution and are within the jurisdiction of a single court, they must be prosecuted in a single prosecution, except as provided in Subsection (c), if they are based on the same act.
    (c) When 2 or more offenses are charged as required by Subsection (b), the court in the interest of justice may order that one or more of such charges shall be tried separately.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 86 cases (30 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: People v. Hunter, 2013 IL 114100 (Ill. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Hunter, 2013 IL 114100 (Ill. 2013). · cites it 5× “) 720 ILCS 5/3-3 (West 2008). ¶ 15 In the case at bar, the appellate court held that defendant “engaged in a single act of simultaneous, constructive possession of the cannabis and the handguns.”
People v. Knaff, 752 N.E.2d 1123 (Ill. 2001). · cites it 3× “The defendant relies upon sections 3-3(b), 3-4(a)(l), and 3-4(b) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (the Code) (720 ILCS 5/3-3(b), 3-4(a)(l), (b) (West 1998)) and section 115-4(k) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-4(k) (West 1998)).”
People v. McGee, 2015 IL App (1st) 130367 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 2× “720 ILCS 5/3-3 (West 2008). Defendant further argued that because the State was required to join the charges, but did not, the time within which the trial was to begin on the murder charges was subject to the same statutory speedy trial period as applied to the original charges.”
People v. Delhaye, 2021 IL App (2d) 190271 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). · cites it 4× “Pretrial Motions ¶9 On July 25, 2017, defendant moved to dismiss the information on the ground that the State violated the compulsory-joinder statute (720 ILCS 5/3-3 (West 2016)) by bringing the charges after defendant pled guilty to failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident,…”
People v. Gooden, 725 N.E.2d 1248 (Ill. 2000). · cites it 3× “" 720 ILCS 5/3-3(b) (West 1996). Once a defendant has been prosecuted for an offense, the State is barred from prosecuting him or her for any other offense which, pursuant to section 3-3(b), should have been joined with the original prosecution.”
People v. Hunter, 2012 IL App (1st) 92681 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 5× “¶8 On April 17, 2009, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the new charges against him, arguing that the compulsory joinder statute (720 ILCS 5/3-3(b) (West 2006)) required the State to charge the defendant with the new and additional gun-related offenses with the original…”
People v. Luciano, 2013 IL App (2d) 110792 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “” 720 ILCS 5/3-3(b) (West 2006). This provision has been interpreted to mean that, where there are new and additional charges, if they arise from the same facts as the original charges and the State had knowledge of these facts at the commencement of the prosecution, then the…”
People v. McBride, 2022 IL App (4th) 220301 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). · cites it 3× “) 720 ILCS 5/3-3 (West 2020). If charges are subject to compulsory joinder with charges filed previously, “ ‘the time within which trial is to begin on the new and additional charges is subject to the same statutory limitation that is applied to the original charges.”
People v. Peters, 2018 IL App (2d) 150650 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “The defendant insists that, because no legitimate reason existed for not adding count IV and its factual basis to the original charging instrument, count IV had to be filed within 160 days of the original charges. Because it was not, the defendant argues that his counsel was…”
People v. Williams, 788 N.E.2d 1126 (Ill. 2003). “) 720 ILCS 5/3-3 (West 1996). The committee comments shed some light upon what the phrase "based on the same act" means: "Section 3-3 requires in substance that several offenses must be prosecuted in a single prosecution if they are based on the same act.”
People v. Williams, 737 N.E.2d 230 (Ill. 2000). · cites it 2× “) 720 ILCS 5/3-3 (West 1992). In this case, it is clear that the murder of Sharon Bushong and the murder of Carlos Robertson did not arise from the same act.”
People v. Gonzalez, 2019 IL App (1st) 152760 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “” 720 ILCS 5/3-3(b) (West 2012). ¶ 57 If the State is required to bring charges in a single prosecution under the compulsory joinder statute, the time within which trial must begin on any new and additional charges is subject to the same statutory limitation that applied to the…”
Show all 86 citing cases →
— 720 ILCS 5/3-3(a) — 4 cases
People v. Delhaye, 2021 IL App (2d) 190271 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “Pretrial Motions ¶9 On July 25, 2017, defendant moved to dismiss the information on the ground that the State violated the compulsory-joinder statute (720 ILCS 5/3-3 (West 2016)) by bringing the charges after defendant pled guilty to failure to reduce speed to avoid an accident,…”
People v. Delhaye, 2021 IL App (2d) 190271 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
People v. Harris, 2019 IL App (2d) 170114-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2019).
People v. Null, 2024 IL App (4th) 230851-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
— 720 ILCS 5/3-3(b) — 57 cases
People v. Hunter, 2013 IL 114100 (Ill. 2013). “) 720 ILCS 5/3-3 (West 2008). ¶ 15 In the case at bar, the appellate court held that defendant “engaged in a single act of simultaneous, constructive possession of the cannabis and the handguns.”
People v. Knaff, 752 N.E.2d 1123 (Ill. 2001). “The defendant relies upon sections 3-3(b), 3-4(a)(l), and 3-4(b) of the Criminal Code of 1961 (the Code) (720 ILCS 5/3-3(b), 3-4(a)(l), (b) (West 1998)) and section 115-4(k) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 (725 ILCS 5/115-4(k) (West 1998)).”
People v. Luciano, 2013 IL App (2d) 110792 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “” 720 ILCS 5/3-3(b) (West 2006). This provision has been interpreted to mean that, where there are new and additional charges, if they arise from the same facts as the original charges and the State had knowledge of these facts at the commencement of the prosecution, then the…”
People v. Gooden, 725 N.E.2d 1248 (Ill. 2000). “" 720 ILCS 5/3-3(b) (West 1996). Once a defendant has been prosecuted for an offense, the State is barred from prosecuting him or her for any other offense which, pursuant to section 3-3(b), should have been joined with the original prosecution.”
People v. Gonzalez, 2019 IL App (1st) 152760 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019). “” 720 ILCS 5/3-3(b) (West 2012). ¶ 57 If the State is required to bring charges in a single prosecution under the compulsory joinder statute, the time within which trial must begin on any new and additional charges is subject to the same statutory limitation that applied to the…”
— 720 ILCS 5/3-3(b)(1) — 1 case
People v. Jones (Ill. App. Ct. 1997).
— 720 ILCS 5/3-3(c) — 3 cases
People v. Hunter, 2013 IL 114100 (Ill. 2013). “) 720 ILCS 5/3-3 (West 2008). ¶ 15 In the case at bar, the appellate court held that defendant “engaged in a single act of simultaneous, constructive possession of the cannabis and the handguns.”
People v. Gooden, 725 N.E.2d 1248 (Ill. 2000). “" 720 ILCS 5/3-3(b) (West 1996). Once a defendant has been prosecuted for an offense, the State is barred from prosecuting him or her for any other offense which, pursuant to section 3-3(b), should have been joined with the original prosecution.”
People v. Hunter, 2012 IL App (1st) 92681 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “¶8 On April 17, 2009, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the new charges against him, arguing that the compulsory joinder statute (720 ILCS 5/3-3(b) (West 2006)) required the State to charge the defendant with the new and additional gun-related offenses with the original…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.