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