In People v. Bryant, 92 N.Y.2d 216 (1998), the high court held that a State indictment is not automatically barred by a prior Federal indictment where both prosecutions are based upon a single transaction. In that case, both the Federal and State prosecutions were based upon the same bank robbery and subsequent high-speed vehicle chase and exchange of gunfire. The defendants were charged federally with bank robbery (18 U.S.C. 2113 [a] ), assaulting and placing in jeopardy the lives of persons by the use of dangerous weapons in the course of a robbery (18 U.S.C. 2113 [d] ), using and possessing firearms during the commission of a Federal crime (18 U.S.C. 924 [c] [2]), and conspiracy against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371). Following their Federal convictions, the defendants were then indicted by the State for attempted first-degree murder of a police officer (Penal Law 125.27 [1] [a] [I]), and possession of a defaced weapon (Penal Law 265.02 [3]). T he Court held that to determined if CPL 40.20 (2) (b) allowed such a second prosecution, a two prong analysis must be employed. "The first prong of the exception . . . requires a comparison of the Federal and State charges at issue to determine whether each of the Federal offenses contains an element which is not an element of any State offense, and vice versa." Id. at 227. The second prong requires a determination "that the kinds of harm or evil sought to be regulated under the Federal State statutes are very different." Id. at 229. Regarding the first prong, the Court of Appeals held that "each of the Federal crimes committed by defendants contained an element that is not an element of any of the State crimes for which defendants were prosecuted." Id. at 228.