K.S.A. » Chapter 21
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 21-3108 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

21-3108.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3108; L. 1970, ch. 124, § 1; L. 1977, ch. 105, § 8; Repealed, L. 2010, ch. 136, § 307; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: State v. Jordan, 370 P.3d 417 (Kan. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Jordan, 370 P.3d 417 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 32× “According to the panel, at the trial on the traffic offenses, “the only element for theft by deception that was met by the police report was that Smith owned” the Mercedes; there was no evidence of Jordan’s intent or deceitfulness, of the car being valued between $1,000 and…”
State v. Schroeder, 105 P.3d 1237 (Kan. 2005). · cites it 16× “In addition, Kansas has codified both the United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibition of double jeopardy and the state Constitution’s tandem prohibition in Section 10 of the Bill of Rights at K.S.A. 21-3108, see Barnhart, 266 Kan. at 544 .”
State v. Fillman, 223 P.3d 827 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 40× “That statute states, in pertinent part: "A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted in a district court of the United States or in a court of general jurisdiction of a sister state or in the municipal court of any city of this state for a crime which is…”
State v. Calderon, 661 P.2d 781 (Kan. 1983). · cites it 16× “The appellant contends the trial court erred in refusing to sustain his motion to dismiss on the grounds that this prosecution violated the double jeopardy provisions of K.S.A. 21-3108(2)( a ) and his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and that he is entitled to credit…”
State v. Arculeo, 36 P.3d 305 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 16× “K.S.A. 21-3108 provides: *969 "(2) A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted for a different crime, or for the same crime based upon different facts, if such former prosecution: (a) Resulted in either a conviction or an acquittal and the subsequent…”
State v. Wilkins, 7 P.3d 252 (Kan. 2000). · cites it 11× “” *260 K.S.A. 21-3108 is a codification of the double jeopardy rule and contains two parts, the “compulsory joinder” rule and the “identity of elements” rule.”
State v. Hernandez, 273 P.3d 774 (Kan. 2012). · cites it 8× “Of course, it is a rather fundamental principle, codified in this State in K.S.A. 21-3108(1)(c), that "[a] conviction of an included offense is an acquittal of the offense charged.”
State v. Freeman, 689 P.2d 885 (Kan. 1984). · cites it 9× “21-3107, multiple prosecutions for the same act, and (2) K.S.A. 21-3108, effect of former prosecution.”
State v. Brueninger, 710 P.2d 1325 (Kan. 1985). · cites it 26× “The district court sustained the motion, dismissing the charge pursuant to K.S.A. 21-3108(2)(a). The district court held that the DUI charge resulted from incidents from which appellee was found guilty in the Rossville municipal court, and the appellee could have been charged in…”
State v. Beerbower, 936 P.2d 248 (Kan. 1997). · cites it 22× “21-3107, multiple prosecutions for the same act, and (2) K.S.A. 21-3108, effect of former prosecution.”
State v. Thompkins, 21 P.3d 997 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 7× “21-3107 and K.S.A. 21-3108. K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 21-3107 defines the right of the State to charge more than one offense *337 based on the same act and states that a defendant may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense not specifically charged.”
State v. Russell, 622 P.2d 658 (Kan. 1981). · cites it 12× “The Judicial Council notes relative to this section of the statute (K.S.A. 21-3108 [Weeks]) state: “Subsection (3) provides a bar to subsequent prosecution in case of prior prosecution in another jurisdiction or in a municipal or police court of this state.”
Show all 102 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(1) — 3 cases
State v. Whorton, 589 P.2d 610 (Kan. 1979).
In Re Minnis, Jr., 29 P.3d 462 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Derusseau, 966 P.2d 694 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Beerbower, 936 P.2d 248 (Kan. 1997). “21-3107, multiple prosecutions for the same act, and (2) K.S.A. 21-3108, effect of former prosecution.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Anderson, 188 P.3d 38 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(1)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Muck, 939 P.2d 896 (Kan. 1997).
State v. Beerbower, 936 P.2d 248 (Kan. 1997). “21-3107, multiple prosecutions for the same act, and (2) K.S.A. 21-3108, effect of former prosecution.”
State v. Hernandez, 273 P.3d 774 (Kan. 2012). “Of course, it is a rather fundamental principle, codified in this State in K.S.A. 21-3108(1)(c), that "[a] conviction of an included offense is an acquittal of the offense charged.”
State v. Schilling, 712 P.2d 1233 (Kan. 1986).
State v. Grayson (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(1981) — 1 case
State v. Goodman, 455 A.2d 475 (N.J. 1983).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(2) — 6 cases
State v. Calderon, 661 P.2d 781 (Kan. 1983). “The appellant contends the trial court erred in refusing to sustain his motion to dismiss on the grounds that this prosecution violated the double jeopardy provisions of K.S.A. 21-3108(2)( a ) and his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and that he is entitled to credit…”
State v. Jordan, 370 P.3d 417 (Kan. 2016). “According to the panel, at the trial on the traffic offenses, “the only element for theft by deception that was met by the police report was that Smith owned” the Mercedes; there was no evidence of Jordan’s intent or deceitfulness, of the car being valued between $1,000 and…”
State v. Hawkins, 176 P.3d 174 (Kan. 2008).
State v. Hooks, 840 P.2d 483 (Kan. 1992).
State v. Edgington, 573 P.2d 1059 (Kan. 1978).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(2)(a) — 31 cases
State v. Jordan, 370 P.3d 417 (Kan. 2016). “According to the panel, at the trial on the traffic offenses, “the only element for theft by deception that was met by the police report was that Smith owned” the Mercedes; there was no evidence of Jordan’s intent or deceitfulness, of the car being valued between $1,000 and…”
State v. Schroeder, 105 P.3d 1237 (Kan. 2005). “In addition, Kansas has codified both the United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibition of double jeopardy and the state Constitution’s tandem prohibition in Section 10 of the Bill of Rights at K.S.A. 21-3108, see Barnhart, 266 Kan. at 544 .”
State v. Brueninger, 710 P.2d 1325 (Kan. 1985). “The district court sustained the motion, dismissing the charge pursuant to K.S.A. 21-3108(2)(a). The district court held that the DUI charge resulted from incidents from which appellee was found guilty in the Rossville municipal court, and the appellee could have been charged in…”
State v. Wilkins, 7 P.3d 252 (Kan. 2000). “” *260 K.S.A. 21-3108 is a codification of the double jeopardy rule and contains two parts, the “compulsory joinder” rule and the “identity of elements” rule.”
State v. Calderon, 661 P.2d 781 (Kan. 1983). “The appellant contends the trial court erred in refusing to sustain his motion to dismiss on the grounds that this prosecution violated the double jeopardy provisions of K.S.A. 21-3108(2)( a ) and his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and that he is entitled to credit…”
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Schroeder, 105 P.3d 1237 (Kan. 2005). “In addition, Kansas has codified both the United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibition of double jeopardy and the state Constitution’s tandem prohibition in Section 10 of the Bill of Rights at K.S.A. 21-3108, see Barnhart, 266 Kan. at 544 .”
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(2)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Calderon, 661 P.2d 781 (Kan. 1983). “The appellant contends the trial court erred in refusing to sustain his motion to dismiss on the grounds that this prosecution violated the double jeopardy provisions of K.S.A. 21-3108(2)( a ) and his constitutional right to a speedy trial, and that he is entitled to credit…”
State v. Mourning, 664 P.2d 857 (Kan. 1983).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(2)(c)(ii) — 1 case
State v. Hawkins, 176 P.3d 174 (Kan. 2008).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(2)(o) — 2 cases
State v. Fisher, 661 P.2d 791 (Kan. 1983).
Williams v. Darr, 603 P.2d 1021 (Kan. Ct. App. 1979).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(3) — 6 cases
State v. Russell, 622 P.2d 658 (Kan. 1981). “The Judicial Council notes relative to this section of the statute (K.S.A. 21-3108 [Weeks]) state: “Subsection (3) provides a bar to subsequent prosecution in case of prior prosecution in another jurisdiction or in a municipal or police court of this state.”
State v. Fillman, 223 P.3d 827 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “That statute states, in pertinent part: "A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted in a district court of the United States or in a court of general jurisdiction of a sister state or in the municipal court of any city of this state for a crime which is…”
State v. Henwood, 756 P.2d 1087 (Kan. 1988).
State Ex Rel. Kline v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cty., 85 P.3d 1237 (Kan. 2004).
In Re Habeas Corpus Application of Coulter, 860 P.2d 51 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(3)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Fillman, 223 P.3d 827 (Kan. Ct. App. 2010). “That statute states, in pertinent part: "A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted in a district court of the United States or in a court of general jurisdiction of a sister state or in the municipal court of any city of this state for a crime which is…”
State v. Henwood, 756 P.2d 1087 (Kan. 1988).
State v. Russell, 622 P.2d 658 (Kan. 1981). “The Judicial Council notes relative to this section of the statute (K.S.A. 21-3108 [Weeks]) state: “Subsection (3) provides a bar to subsequent prosecution in case of prior prosecution in another jurisdiction or in a municipal or police court of this state.”
State v. Speed, 961 P.2d 13 (Kan. 1998).
In Re Habeas Corpus Application of Coulter, 860 P.2d 51 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(3)(o) — 1 case
State v. Russell, 622 P.2d 658 (Kan. 1981). “The Judicial Council notes relative to this section of the statute (K.S.A. 21-3108 [Weeks]) state: “Subsection (3) provides a bar to subsequent prosecution in case of prior prosecution in another jurisdiction or in a municipal or police court of this state.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(4) — 1 case
State v. Love, 625 P.2d 7 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(4)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Jenkins, 284 P.3d 1037 (Kan. 2012).
State v. Hanson, 124 P.3d 486 (Kan. 2005).
State v. Love, 625 P.2d 7 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
State v. Weller, 52 P.3d 368 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(4)(c) — 8 cases
State v. McCowan, 602 P.2d 1363 (Kan. 1979).
State v. Wade, 161 P.3d 704 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Thompkins, 21 P.3d 997 (Kan. 2001). “21-3107 and K.S.A. 21-3108. K.S.A. 2000 Supp. 21-3107 defines the right of the State to charge more than one offense *337 based on the same act and states that a defendant may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included offense not specifically charged.”
In Re Habeas Corpus Petition of Lucas, 789 P.2d 1157 (Kan. 1990).
State v. Dale, 474 P.3d 291 (Kan. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(4)(o) — 1 case
State v. Love, 625 P.2d 7 (Kan. Ct. App. 1981).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(5) — 3 cases
State v. Hernandez, 273 P.3d 774 (Kan. 2012). “Of course, it is a rather fundamental principle, codified in this State in K.S.A. 21-3108(1)(c), that "[a] conviction of an included offense is an acquittal of the offense charged.”
State v. Kemble, 238 P.3d 251 (Kan. 2010).
State v. Simmons, 249 P.3d 15 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(c)(l) — 1 case
State v. Beerbower, 936 P.2d 248 (Kan. 1997). “21-3107, multiple prosecutions for the same act, and (2) K.S.A. 21-3108, effect of former prosecution.”
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(l)(a) — 8 cases
State v. Henderson, 160 P.3d 776 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Beerbower, 936 P.2d 248 (Kan. 1997). “21-3107, multiple prosecutions for the same act, and (2) K.S.A. 21-3108, effect of former prosecution.”
State v. Wade, 161 P.3d 704 (Kan. 2007).
State v. Roberts, 259 P.3d 691 (Kan. 2011).
State v. Derusseau, 966 P.2d 694 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Roberts, 259 P.3d 691 (Kan. 2011).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(l)(c) — 21 cases
State v. Mays, 85 P.3d 1208 (Kan. 2004).
State v. Beerbower, 936 P.2d 248 (Kan. 1997). “21-3107, multiple prosecutions for the same act, and (2) K.S.A. 21-3108, effect of former prosecution.”
State v. McClanahan, 910 P.2d 193 (Kan. 1996).
State v. Hernandez, 273 P.3d 774 (Kan. 2012). “Of course, it is a rather fundamental principle, codified in this State in K.S.A. 21-3108(1)(c), that "[a] conviction of an included offense is an acquittal of the offense charged.”
State v. Bierman, 805 P.2d 25 (Kan. 1991).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(l)(c)(i) — 1 case
State v. Smith, 825 P.2d 541 (Kan. Ct. App. 1992).
— K.S.A. § 21-3108(l)(c)(iii) — 1 case
State v. Burnett, 762 P.2d 192 (Kan. Ct. App. 1988).
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.