§ 111. When prosecution barred by former prosecution in another jurisdiction.
When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this Commonwealth
and of the United States or another state, a prosecution in any such other jurisdiction
is a bar to a subsequent prosecution in this Commonwealth under the following circumstances:
(1) The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in section
109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution for the
same offense) and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct unless:
(i) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense
for which he is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required
by the other and the law defining each of such offenses is intended to prevent a substantially
different harm or evil; or
(ii) the second offense was not consummated when the former trial began.
(2) The former prosecution was terminated, after the indictment was found, by an acquittal
or by a final order or judgment for the defendant which has not been set aside, reversed
or vacated and which acquittal, final order or judgment necessarily required a determination
inconsistent with a fact which must be established for conviction of the offense of
which the defendant is subsequently prosecuted.
Cross References. Section 111 is referred to in section 112 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
23
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Calloway, 675 A.2d 743 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).
Commonwealth v. Calloway, 675 A.2d 743 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).
· cites it 12× “We find that the trial court correctly ruled that three out of four of these charges were not barred *231 by the statutory provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 111, and therefore affirm the trial court’s order.”
Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (1999).
· cites it 2× “(citing 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 111 (1998), a statute that bars, with certain exceptions, a state prosecution following a federal conviction based on the same conduct).”
Commonwealth v. Scarfo, 611 A.2d 242 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 4× “Appellants next raise the issue of whether their trial should have been statutorily barred under 18 Pa.C.S. § 111. Section 111 directs that a Commonwealth prosecution is barred by a former prosecution in another jurisdiction.”
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McCafferty, 758 A.2d 1155 (Pa. 2000).
· cites it 2× “Although the dual sovereignty principle set forth above precludes appellees from advancing a double jeopardy argument on federal or state constitutional grounds, appellees also argue that the additional sanction imposed by the Commonwealth in this case violates statutory double…”
Commonwealth v. Studebaker, 362 A.2d 336 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976).
· cites it 6× “” 18 Pa.C.S. §111 (1973), is applicable to the instant appeal.”
Drabic v. Com., Dept. of Transp., 906 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 2006).
· cites it 2× “This Court has clearly held that an administrative agency over which a criminal judge has no control cannot be considered criminal in nature. Duffey, 639 A.2d at 1177 .”
Commonwealth v. Jones, 668 A.2d 491 (Pa. 1995).
“Appellant has failed to raise a double jeopardy claim under 18 Pa.C.S. § 111. Section 111 bars a prosecution in a state court by a former prosecution in another jurisdiction unless (1) the prosecution the Commonwealth proposes to undertake is not based on the same conduct for…”
State v. Rogers, 566 P.2d 1142 (N.M. 1977).
· cites it 2× “22, § 130 (1969); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 111 (Purdon 1973); S.”
Commonwealth v. Fels, 428 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981).
· cites it 6× “The lower court also noted that this principle has been incorporated in the Pennsylvania Crimes Code by enactment of 18 Pa.C.S. § 111 which reads in pertinent part as follows: When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this Commonwealth and of the…”
Kendrick v. Da of Philadelphia Cnty., 916 A.2d 529 (Pa. 2007).
“Not only was this statement dicta from a non-majority opinion, supra note 2, but the case is clearly distinguishable from the case sub judice as the issue in Wetton was whether double jeopardy under 18 Pa.C.S. § 111 barred the prosecution of the defendants on substantive corrupt…”
State v. Goodman, 455 A.2d 475 (N.J. 1983).
· cites it 2× “515 (1979)); Pennsylvania (18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 111 (Purdon 1973)); Texas (Tex.”
Commonwealth v. Traitz, 597 A.2d 1129 (Pa. 1991).
· cites it 2× “18 Pa.C.S. § 111. The 100-hour-rule referred to the scheme initiated by the Roofers Union in 1985 forcing union contractors to make minimum monthly contributions to the union fund based upon a minimum of 100 hours of work per month.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 111(1) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Calloway, 675 A.2d 743 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996).
“We find that the trial court correctly ruled that three out of four of these charges were not barred *231 by the statutory provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. § 111, and therefore affirm the trial court’s order.”
Commonwealth v. Fels, 428 A.2d 657 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981).
“The lower court also noted that this principle has been incorporated in the Pennsylvania Crimes Code by enactment of 18 Pa.C.S. § 111 which reads in pertinent part as follows: When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this Commonwealth and of the…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 111(1)(i) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 111(2) — 1 case
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.