New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 40.20 (2026)

Previous prosecution; when a bar to second prosecution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 40.20 Previous prosecution; when a bar to second prosecution.
  1. A person may not be twice prosecuted for the same offense.
  2. A person may not be separately prosecuted for two offenses based
upon the same act or criminal transaction unless:
  (a) The offenses as defined have substantially different elements and
the acts establishing one offense are in the main clearly
distinguishable from those establishing the other; or
  (b) Each of the offenses as defined contains an element which is not
an element of the other, and the statutory provisions defining such
offenses are designed to prevent very different kinds of harm or evil;
or
  (c) One of such offenses consists of criminal possession of contraband
matter and the other offense is one involving the use of such contraband
matter, other than a sale thereof; or
  (d) One of the offenses is assault or some other offense resulting in
physical injury to a person, and the other offense is one of homicide
based upon the death of such person from the same physical injury, and
such death occurs after a prosecution for the assault or other
non-homicide offense; or
  (e) Each offense involves death, injury, loss or other consequence to
a different victim; or
  (f) One of the offenses consists of a violation of a statutory
provision of another jurisdiction, which offense has been prosecuted in
such other jurisdiction and has there been terminated by a court order
expressly founded upon insufficiency of evidence to establish some
element of such offense which is not an element of the other offense,
defined by the laws of this state; or
  (g) The present prosecution is for a consummated result offense, as
defined in subdivision three of section 20.10, which occurred in this
state and the offense was the result of a conspiracy, facilitation or
solicitation prosecuted in another state.
  (h) One of such offenses is enterprise corruption in violation of
section 460.20 of the penal law, racketeering in violation of federal
law or any comparable offense pursuant to the law of another state and a
separate or subsequent prosecution is not barred by section 40.50 of
this article.
  (i) One of the offenses consists of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 371,
where the object of the conspiracy is to attempt in any manner to evade
or defeat any federal income tax or the payment thereof, or a violation
of 26 U.S.C. 7201, 26 U.S.C. 7202, 26 U.S.C. 7203, 26 U.S.C. 7204, 26
U.S.C. 7205, 26 U.S.C. 7206 or 26 U.S.C. 7212(A), where the purpose is
to evade or defeat any federal income tax or the payment thereof, and
the other offense is committed for the purpose of evading or defeating
any New York state or New York city income taxes and is defined in
article one hundred fifty-five of the penal law, article one hundred
seventy of the penal law, article one hundred seventy-five of the penal
law, article thirty-seven of the tax law or chapter forty of title
eleven of the administrative code of the city of New York.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1977–2007 · leading case: People v. Biggs, 803 N.E.2d 370 (NY 2003).
People v. Biggs, 803 N.E.2d 370 (NY 2003). “Although a defendant’s state and federal constitutional double jeopardy claims are reviewable even when they are not properly preserved below (see People v Michael, 48 NY2d 1, 7 [1979]), the same is not true of a statutory double jeopardy claim under Criminal Procedure Law §…”
Mizell v. Attorney Gen. of State of NY, 442 F. Supp. 868 (E.D.N.Y 1977). ““[A] person ‘is prosecuted’ for an offense . when he is charged therewith by an accusatory instrument filed in a court of this state .”
People v. Capellan, 17 Misc. 3d 337 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007). “Defendants Daniel Capellán and Julio Santos move pursuant to the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions as well as Criminal Procedure Law § 40.20 to bar retrial of this case and to dismiss the indictment.”
— N.Y. Criminal Procedure Law § 40.20(1) — 1 case
Mizell v. Attorney Gen. of State of NY, 442 F. Supp. 868 (E.D.N.Y 1977). ““[A] person ‘is prosecuted’ for an offense . when he is charged therewith by an accusatory instrument filed in a court of this state .”
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.