Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-114: Affirmative defense - Former prosecution in another jurisdiction

When conduct constitutes an offense within the concurrent jurisdiction of this state and of the United States or another state or territory of the United States, a prosecution in any such other jurisdiction is an affirmative defense to a subsequent prosecution in this state under the following circumstances: (1) The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as set out in § 5-1-112 , and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct unless: (A) The offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he or she is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other offense and the law defining each offense is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or (B) The second offense was not consummated when the former trial began; or (2) The former prosecution was terminated by an acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant that has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated and that required a determination inconsistent with a fact that must be established for the conviction of the offense for which the defendant is subsequently prosecuted. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 108; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-108.

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

(1) The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as set out in § 5-1-112 , and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct unless: (A) The offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he or she is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other offense and the law defining each offense is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or (B) The second offense was not consummated when the former trial began; or

(A) The offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he or she is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other offense and the law defining each offense is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or

(B) The second offense was not consummated when the former trial began; or

(2) The former prosecution was terminated by an acquittal or by a final order or judgment for the defendant that has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated and that required a determination inconsistent with a fact that must be established for the conviction of the offense for which the defendant is subsequently prosecuted.