Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 505.050 (2026)

Effects of former prosecution in another jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this state and of the United States or another state, a prosecution in such other jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent prosecution in this state under the following circumstances:

(1) The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal, a conviction which has not subsequently been set aside, or a determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction, and the subsequent prosecution is for an offense involving the same conduct unless:

(a) Each prosecution requires proof of a fact not required in the other prosecution; or

(b) The offense involved in the subsequent prosecution was not consummated when the former prosecution began; or

(2) The former prosecution was terminated in a final order or judgment which has not subsequently been set aside and which required a determination inconsistent with any fact necessary to a conviction in the subsequent prosecution. Effective: January 1, 1975 History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 47, effective January 1, 1975.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1983–2013 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Stephenson, 82 S.W.3d 876 (Ky. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Commonwealth v. Stephenson, 82 S.W.3d 876 (Ky. 2002). · cites it 8× “KRS 505.050, which suspends the dual sovereignty doctrine as it relates to subsequent Kentucky prosecutions for a certain class of offenses by applying Kentucky’s other statutory double jeopardy provisions “to conduct that violates the criminal laws of two different…”

Benton v. Crittenden, 14 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 1999). · cites it 14× “KRS 505.050(1)(a); Commonwealth v. Burge, Ky.”

Eldred v. Commonwealth, 906 S.W.2d 694 (Ky. 1995). · cites it 2× “040); and former prosecutions in other jurisdictions (KRS 505.050). However, in view of the plain language in Ingram , which held that "[t]his Court holds the Kentucky Constitution superordinate to legislative intent," Ingram is the proper source for double jeopardy analysis.”

State v. Goodman, 455 A.2d 475 (N.J. 1983). · cites it 2× “§ 21-3108 (1981)); Kentucky ( Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 505.050 (Bobbs-Merrill 1975)); Montana ( Mont.”

Commonwealth v. Hasch, 421 S.W.3d 349 (Ky. 2013). “055 and KRS 505.050(4).]” 6 As now codified by the General Assembly in the 2006 statutory amendments, the “no duty to retreat” doctrine is squarely part of our statutory law, and is equal in dignity to the provisions of any other statute.”

Hash v. Commonwealth, 883 S.W.2d 892 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “In his appeal Hash argues that his prosecution in Kentucky for the same conduct for which he was convicted in Tennessee violates KRS 505.050. This statute provides in pertinent part as follows: 505.”

Ignatow v. Ryan, 40 S.W.3d 861 (Ky. 2001). “7 Thus, applying the standard announced in KRS 505.050(2) and Hilleb-rand, the crucial inquiry in determining whether Appellant’s perjury trial may go forward is whether the murder trial required a determination inconsistent with any fact necessary to a conviction in the instant…”

Smith v. Lowe, 792 S.W.2d 371 (Ky. 1990). · cites it 4× “” The defendant-appellant moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 505.050. This motion was overruled by the trial court and an original action was then…”

Foley v. Commonwealth, 233 S.W.3d 734 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007). “In its order denying the motion to dismiss, the trial court herein framed the question as whether Appellant was facing prosecution in Hardin County for the same offense that he pled guilty to in Bullitt County. Finding that Appellant was not, the court noted, Pursuant to 505.”

Ingram v. Commonwealth, 801 S.W.2d 321 (Ky. 1990). · cites it 2× “There we held that the collateral estoppel element of the double jeopardy principle, as codified by KRS 505.050(2), barred a state prosecution based on a single act after a jury had acquitted the defendant of federal charges deriving from the same act.”

Booth v. Commonwealth, 675 S.W.2d 856 (Ky. 1984). · cites it 2× “James is in violation of KRS 505.050 and their right against double jeopardy under the state and federal constitutions.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 505.050(1)(a) — 1 case

Benton v. Crittenden, 14 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 1999). “KRS 505.050(1)(a); Commonwealth v. Burge, Ky.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 505.050(2) — 4 cases

Benton v. Crittenden, 14 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 1999). “KRS 505.050(1)(a); Commonwealth v. Burge, Ky.”

Smith v. Lowe, 792 S.W.2d 371 (Ky. 1990). “” The defendant-appellant moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States Constitution and the Kentucky Constitution and KRS 505.050. This motion was overruled by the trial court and an original action was then…”

Ingram v. Commonwealth, 801 S.W.2d 321 (Ky. 1990). “There we held that the collateral estoppel element of the double jeopardy principle, as codified by KRS 505.050(2), barred a state prosecution based on a single act after a jury had acquitted the defendant of federal charges deriving from the same act.”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 505.050(4) — 1 case

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 505.050(l)(a) — 1 case

Benton v. Crittenden, 14 S.W.3d 1 (Ky. 1999). “KRS 505.050(1)(a); Commonwealth v. Burge, Ky.”

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.