—by the 18th century the rule had been extended to the law governing public prosecutions for murder; that the primary and most frequently cited justification for the rule is that 13th century medical science was incapable of establishing causation beyond a reasonable doubt when a great deal of time had elapsed between the injury to the victim and his death; and that, as …

After the victim in Carrillo died several years after the incident, Carrillo and Stacey were charged under multiple theories of first degree murder, including (1) intentionally killing the victim,(2) knowing that the shooting created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm, and (3) felony murder predicated on home invasion, burglary and armed robbery.

Our supreme court reached this conclusion in Carrillo: as the defendant Stacey had been acquitted of attempted murder, the trial court "determined that there was reasonable doubt that Stacey had the requisite intent to kill or to cause great bodily harm."

Murder prosecutions are not unheard of even where there has been an extended time interval between the defendant's acts and the victim's death.

"As regards Stacey, we hold that she may be charged with*** murder based upon*** the knowledge that her actions created a strong possibility of death or great bodily harm. We further find, however, that she may not be charged with*** murder based upon*** the intent to kill or cause great bodily harm."

In another case where the murder victim died only after an earlier prosecution for related crimes, the Illinois Supreme Court in 1995 applied what it termed "the Diaz exception" in holding that there was no double jeopardy bar to the murder prosecution.

Georgia, Illinois, New York, and Oregon held that failure to include the rule as part of the comprehensive criminal code adopted by the Legislatures in their States effected its abrogation.

The "same-elements" test, commonly referred to as the Blockburger test, focuses on "whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, they are the `same offence'and double jeopardy bars additional punishment

The trial court denied the defendants' motions; however, the appellate court considered the principles of double jeopardy and collateral estoppel and reversed the trial court, barring all indictments except for that of murder based upon a strong probability of death or great bodily harm.

Because we have determined that the Diaz rule is applicable here, we do not address whether the crime of attempted murder is a lesser-included offense of murder.