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

K.S.A. § 21-5110 (2026)

Effect of former prosecution

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

21-5110. Effect of former prosecution. (a) A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted for the same crime, based upon the same facts, if such former prosecution:

(1) Resulted in either a conviction or an acquittal or in a determination that the evidence was insufficient to warrant a conviction;

(2) was terminated by a final order or judgment, even if entered before trial, which required a determination inconsistent with any fact or legal proposition necessary to a conviction in the subsequent prosecution; or

(3) was terminated without the consent of the defendant after the defendant had been placed in jeopardy, except where such termination shall have occurred by reason of:

(A) The illness or death of an indispensable party;

(B) the inability of the jury to agree; or

(C) the impossibility of the jury arriving at a verdict.

A conviction of an included crime is an acquittal of the offense charged.

(b) 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:

(1) Resulted in either a conviction or an acquittal and the subsequent prosecution is for a crime or crimes of which evidence has been admitted in the former prosecution and which might have been included as other counts in the complaint, indictment or information filed in such former prosecution or upon which the state then might have elected to rely; or was for a crime which involves the same conduct, unless each prosecution requires proof of a fact not required in the other prosecution, or the crime was not consummated when the former trial began;

(2) was terminated by a final order or judgment, even if entered before trial, which required a determination inconsistent with any fact necessary to a conviction in the subsequent prosecution; or

(3) was terminated without the consent of the defendant after the defendant had been placed in jeopardy, except where such termination shall have occurred by reason of:

(A) The illness or death of an indispensable party;

(B) the inability of the jury to agree; or

(C) the impossibility of the jury arriving at a verdict, and the subsequent prosecution is for an offense of which the defendant could have been convicted if the former prosecution had not been terminated improperly.

(c) A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted in a district court of the United States or in a state court of general jurisdiction of another state or in the municipal court of any city of this state for a crime which is within the concurrent jurisdiction of this state, if such former prosecution:

(1) Resulted in either a conviction or an acquittal, and the subsequent prosecution is for the same conduct, unless each prosecution requires proof of a fact not required in the other prosecution, or the offense was not consummated when the former trial began; or

(2) was terminated by a final order or judgment, even if entered before trial, which required a determination inconsistent with any fact necessary to a conviction in the prosecution in this state.

(d) A prosecution is not barred under this section:

(1) By a former prosecution before a court which lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or the offense;

(2) by a former prosecution procured by the defendant without the knowledge of a prosecuting officer authorized to commence a prosecution for the maximum offense which might have been charged on the facts known to the defendant, and with the purpose of avoiding the sentence which otherwise might be imposed; or

(3) if subsequent proceedings resulted in the invalidation, setting aside, reversal or vacating of the conviction, unless the defendant was adjudged not guilty.

(e) In no case where a conviction for a lesser included crime has been invalidated, set aside, reversed or vacated shall the defendant be subsequently prosecuted for a higher degree of the crime for which such defendant was originally convicted.

(f) A defendant is in jeopardy when such defendant is put on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction upon an indictment, information or complaint sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction, and in the case of trial by jury, when the jury has been impaneled and sworn, or where the case is tried to the court without a jury, when the court has begun to hear evidence.

History: L. 2010, ch. 136, § 10; July 1, 2011.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2018–2026 · leading case: In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman, 441 P.3d 451 (Kan. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman, 441 P.3d 451 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 37× “22-3423 and K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5110. K.S.A. 22-3423 identifies situations in which a district judge has the discretion to grant a mistrial.”
State v. Keys, 510 P.3d 706 (Kan. 2022). “Double jeopardy For the first time in his reply brief, Keys argues his prosecution under the second superseding indictment was improper under K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5110, the statutory codification of the constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy.”
State v. Frantz, 521 P.3d 1113 (Kan. 2022). “So, in a hypothetical case in which the State fails to present sufficient evidence for a conviction, and the trial court correctly grants a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence, the defendant may no longer be prosecuted for that alleged offense.”
In re Care & Treatment of Sigler, 448 P.3d 368 (Kan. 2019). “22-3423(1)(c); see also K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5110; In re Bowman, 309 Kan.”
State v. Kelly (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8× “Kelly's conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer does not violate K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5110(c). Kelly also requests this court reverse his Kansas conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer because he contends it violates the statutory…”
State v. Killingsworth (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5110 codifies double jeopardy protections.”
State v. Harris (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 5× “K.S.A. 21-5110 codifies statutory principles relating to double jeopardy.”
Moore v. Hebert (D. Kan. 2024). · cites it 4× “The Kansas statute cited by Plaintiff governing the effect of a former prosecution has been repealed and replaced by K.S.A. § 21-5110. Under that revised statute, “[a] prosecution is not barred under this section .”
State v. Myers, 475 P.3d 1256 (Kan. Ct. App. 2020). “See K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5110 (effect of former prosecution).”
State v. Dixon (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “This court exercises unlimited review when analyzing compulsory joinder issues and interpretation of the statute where the rule is set forth, K.S.A. 21-5110. State v. Jordan, 303 Kan.”
Couch v. Kansas, State of (D. Kan. 2025). · cites it 2× “In his Petition under § 2241, Petitioner alleges that his state court prosecution is “[a] successive prosecution in violation of state law K.S.A. 21-5110(c)” because the “state is prosecuting offense conduct already adjudicated in Federal District Court.”
State v. Morgan (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “Morgan argues that because the Douglas County case "does not conform to the applicable statutory provision of K.S.A. 21-5110," it should be vacated. The district court found that Morgan's motion to correct an illegal sentence improperly raised issues which belonged in a direct…”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(a) — 2 cases
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman, 441 P.3d 451 (Kan. 2019). “22-3423 and K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5110. K.S.A. 22-3423 identifies situations in which a district judge has the discretion to grant a mistrial.”
State v. Harris (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). “K.S.A. 21-5110 codifies statutory principles relating to double jeopardy.”
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(a)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Frantz, 521 P.3d 1113 (Kan. 2022). “So, in a hypothetical case in which the State fails to present sufficient evidence for a conviction, and the trial court correctly grants a motion for judgment of acquittal at the close of the State's evidence, the defendant may no longer be prosecuted for that alleged offense.”
State v. Harris (Kan. Ct. App. 2026). “K.S.A. 21-5110 codifies statutory principles relating to double jeopardy.”
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(a)(3) — 2 cases
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman, 441 P.3d 451 (Kan. 2019). “22-3423 and K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5110. K.S.A. 22-3423 identifies situations in which a district judge has the discretion to grant a mistrial.”
State v. Killingsworth (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5110 codifies double jeopardy protections.”
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(a)(3)(B) — 1 case
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman, 441 P.3d 451 (Kan. 2019). “22-3423 and K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5110. K.S.A. 22-3423 identifies situations in which a district judge has the discretion to grant a mistrial.”
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(a)(3)(C) — 1 case
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman, 441 P.3d 451 (Kan. 2019). “22-3423 and K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5110. K.S.A. 22-3423 identifies situations in which a district judge has the discretion to grant a mistrial.”
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(b) — 1 case
State v. Rosenberg (Kan. Ct. App. 2024).
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(b)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Smith, 432 P.3d 109 (Kan. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Dixon (Kan. Ct. App. 2024). “This court exercises unlimited review when analyzing compulsory joinder issues and interpretation of the statute where the rule is set forth, K.S.A. 21-5110. State v. Jordan, 303 Kan.”
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(c) — 2 cases
State v. Kelly (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “Kelly's conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer does not violate K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5110(c). Kelly also requests this court reverse his Kansas conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer because he contends it violates the statutory…”
Couch v. Kansas, State of (D. Kan. 2025). “In his Petition under § 2241, Petitioner alleges that his state court prosecution is “[a] successive prosecution in violation of state law K.S.A. 21-5110(c)” because the “state is prosecuting offense conduct already adjudicated in Federal District Court.”
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(c)(1) — 1 case
State v. Kelly (Kan. Ct. App. 2022). “Kelly's conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer does not violate K.S.A. 2020 Supp. 21-5110(c). Kelly also requests this court reverse his Kansas conviction for fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer because he contends it violates the statutory…”
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(d)(3) — 1 case
Moore v. Hebert (D. Kan. 2024). “The Kansas statute cited by Plaintiff governing the effect of a former prosecution has been repealed and replaced by K.S.A. § 21-5110. Under that revised statute, “[a] prosecution is not barred under this section .”
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(e) — 1 case
State v. Smith (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 21-5110(f) — 2 cases
In re Petition for Habeas Corpus by Bowman, 441 P.3d 451 (Kan. 2019). “22-3423 and K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 21-5110. K.S.A. 22-3423 identifies situations in which a district judge has the discretion to grant a mistrial.”
State v. Killingsworth (Kan. Ct. App. 2021). “K.S.A. 2019 Supp. 21-5110 codifies double jeopardy protections.”
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.