Court Opinion

ID: 9647999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:58:30.608137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:55.190281
License: Public Domain

FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring.
I write separately to suggest that quite simply the case is controlled by 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 111, which provides, inter alia, that a subsequent state prosecution is barred unless:
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 ...
The evident purpose of this provision is to prevent subsequent prosecutions where the first prosecution was addressed to the same evil as the subsequent prosecution. Further, the use of the conjunction “and” requires that subsequent prosecutions addressed to the same evil as the first are barred even if the subsequent prosecution requires proof of a fact not required by the former prosecution. *315Because the harm or evil to be prevented by the RICO statute is identical to that to be prevented by the Corrupt Organizations Act, the subsequent Corrupt Organizations Act prosecution is barred.