State v. Duncan

4 Citing cases

  1. Bartkus v. Illinois

    359 U.S. 121 (1959)   Cited 917 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that acquittal in state court didn't bar prosecution by federal government for substantially same crime

    Arkansas. State v. Duncan, 221 Ark. 681, 255 S.W.2d 430. California.

  2. People v. Hermiz

    453 Mich. 269 (Mich. 1996)   Cited 28 times
    Concluding that the prosecutor's improper comments having "only slight or negligible influence on the verdict" were harmless

    Others rely on the federal constitution or merely cite Bartkus for the principle of dual sovereignty. State v Duncan, 221 Ark. 681; 255 S.W.2d 430 (1953), State v Tiche, 33 Conn. Sup. 51; 360 A.2d 135 (1976), Richardson v State, 163 Ind. App. 222; 323 N.E.2d 291 (1975), Bell v State, 22 Md. App. 496; 323 A.2d 677 (1974), Crane v State, 92 Nev. 593; 555 P.2d 845 (1976), State v Fletcher, 26 Ohio St.2d 221; 271 N.E.2d 567 (1971), Beard v State, 485 S.W.2d 882 (Tenn, 1972), and State ex rel Cullen v Ceci, 45 Wis.2d 432; 173 N.W.2d 175 (1970). But see, contra, State v Hogg, 118 N.H. 262; 385 A.2d 844 (1978), and Commonwealth v Mills, 447 Pa. 163; 286 A.2d 638 (1971).

  3. State v. Rogers

    90 N.M. 604 (N.M. 1977)   Cited 24 times

    Others rely on the federal constitution or merely cite Bartkus for the principle of dual sovereignty. State v. Duncan, 221 Ark. 681, 255 S.W.2d 430 (1953); State v. Tiche, 33 Conn. Sup. 51, 360 A.2d 135 (1976); Richardson v. State, Ind. App., 323 N.E.2d 291 (1975); Bell v. State, 22 Md. App. 496, 323 A.2d 677 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1003, 95 S.Ct. 2405, 44 L.Ed.2d 672 (1975); Crane v. State, 555 P.2d 845 (Nev. 1976); State v. Fletcher, 26 Ohio St.2d 221, 271 N.E.2d 567 (1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 1024, 92 S.Ct. 699, 30 L.Ed.2d 675 (1972); Beard v. State, Tenn. App., 485 S.W.2d 882 (1972); State ex rel. Cullen v. Ceci, 45 Wis.2d 432, 173 N.W.2d 175 (1970). Insofar as we can determine, only one state has held to the contrary.

  4. Hughes v. Oklahoma State Election Board

    1966 OK 67 (Okla. 1966)   Cited 3 times

    The Court also held that in the exercise of their reserved powers, the states act as independent sovereignties and their right to exercise such powers cannot be impaired or abridged by any federal statutes. In State v. Duncan, 221 Ark. 681, 255 S.W.2d 430, the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that where an accused allegedly sold bales of cotton upon which an agency of the federal government held a chattel mortgage, with the intent to defeat the chattel mortgage and debt thereby secured, and such alleged act was an offense under both state and federal statutes, accused could be prosecuted in the state court for violation of state statute and was not required to be prosecuted in the federal courts.