THE GRAND LARCENY TOOK PLACE IN NEW JERSEY AND IS NOT A “RESULT OFFENSE;” THEREFORE NEW YORK DID NOT HAVE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION (SECOND DEPT).
The Second Department, reversing County Court, determined the grand larceny indictment should have been dismissed because New York did not have territorial jurisdiction. The grand larceny took place in New Jersey and is not a “result offense:”
Where New York’s territorial jurisdiction over an offense is in dispute, the People bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction under CPL 20.20 beyond a reasonable doubt … . Here, the People did not dispute the defendant’s claim that none of the elements of the alleged offense occurred in New York, and did not seek to establish, for instance, that the complainant’s bank account was located in New York … . Rather, the People argued only that territorial jurisdiction was properly based on CPL 20.20(2)(a) because grand larceny was a “result offense” and the alleged “result” occurred in New York, and the County Court denied the defendant’s jurisdictional challenge on this narrow ground.
“When a specific consequence, such as the death of the victim in a homicide case, is an element of an offense, the occurrence of such consequence constitutes the ‘result’ of such offense. An offense of which a result is an element is a ‘result offense'” (CPL 20.10[3]). The elements of larceny are (1) intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or herself or to a third person, and (2) the wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of such property … . Contrary to the People’s contention, since no “specific consequence” is an element of grand larceny in the fourth degree, it follows that larceny in the fourth degree is not a “result offense” within the meaning of CPL 20.10(3) … . People v Cousar, 2021 NY Slip Op 00573, Second Dept 4-3-21