You are here: / / Reversible Error to Deny Defendant’s Request for a Jury Instruction...

Reversible Error to Deny Defendant’s Request for a Jury Instruction on the Terretorial Jurisdiction Requirement

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Richter, determined that the trial court’s failure, at the defendant’s request, to instruct the jury on the terretorial jurisdiction requirement (pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 20.20, an element of the charged offense must have been committed within New York State) was reversible error.  It was alleged that defendant, who worked in New York for a Danish company, essentially wrote checks from the company account to himself.  The defense requested a jury instruction on the requisites for the terretorial jurisdiction of a New York court over the alleged crime and the People did not oppose the request.  The First Department explained that, like a jury instruction on the requisites of venue, a jury instruction on the requisites of jurisdiction should be given upon request:

When a defendant requests the court to instruct the jury on venue, it is error to deny the request even if the People’s proof as to venue may be uncontradicted … . Thus, “when requested to submit the issue to the jury it is doubtful whether it would ever be proper for the court to deny the request and decide the issue as a matter of law on the theory that the People have met their burden by uncontradicted proof” … . These principles apply equally to the issue of territorial jurisdiction, which has a higher burden of proof and which “goes to the very essence of the State’s power to prosecute” … . * * *

Under [CPL 20.20] … “a person may be convicted . . . of an offense . . . committed . . . by his [or her] own conduct . . . when . . . [c]onduct occurred within this state sufficient to establish . . . [a]n element of such offense.” The CJI charge on territorial jurisdiction mirrors the statutory language, and further requires the jury to determine jurisdiction before they begin deliberations on whether the People have proven the defendant guilty of the charged crime. * * * … [T]he purpose of the jurisdiction charge is to focus the jury on this question, and the standard charge on the elements of the crime does not advise the jury that they must decide the threshold jurisdictional issue before deciding anything else. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction should be reversed and the matter remanded for a new trial. People v Thomas, 2014 NY Slip Op 07965, 1st Dept 11-18-14

 

You might also like
THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW PROHIBITS THE RELEASE OF THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PERSONS RECEIVING PUBLIC ASSISTANCE; THEREFORE THE FOIL REQUEST FOR THE ADDRESSES OF HOMELESS SHELTERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
CITY HAD ASSIGNED A CROSSING GUARD TO THE CROSSWALK WHERE INFANT PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A SCHOOL BUS, THE GUARD HAD CALLED IN SICK THAT DAY, NO SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PLAINTIFFS, CITY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
PETITIONERS’ EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CLAIMS UNDER THE STATE AND CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AGAINST THE NYC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Defendant’s Negligence Precluded Her Reliance on the Doctrine of Mutual Mistake to Rescind a Valid Oral Contract
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNAKING A WIRE ABOVE CEILING TILES IS ‘CONSTRUCTION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE WAS PROVIDED WITH A DEFECTIVE LADDER, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION CREATED BY DEFENDANT OR OF WHICH DEFENDANT HAD NOTICE, LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED.
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER HE WAS INDUCED TO SIGN RELEASES BY FRAUD, DURESS AND/OR MUTUAL MISTAKE; PLAINTIFF WAS APPROACHED BY HIS EMPLOYER’S LAWYER AND ALLEGEDLY BELIEVED HE WOULD LOSE HIS JOB IF HE DIDN’T SIGN (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF TRIPPED AND FELL ON AN UNEVEN MAT WHEN SHE STEPPED OFF THE DEFENDANT’S SKATING RINK; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COMPANY WHICH SOLD AND INSTALLED THE MAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS NO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE OWNER OF THE SKATING RINK AND THE SELLER/INSTALLER OF THE MAT AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THE SELLER/INSTALLER OF THE MAT LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Waiver of Appeal Invalid/The Way Defendant Was Holding a Cigarette Justified... Duty to Defend