You are here: / GEOGRAPHICAL JURISDICTION

Tag Archive for: GEOGRAPHICAL JURISDICTION

,

Guilty Plea to Possession of a Weapon Charge in One County Precluded Prosecution for the Same Offense in Another County (Double Jeopardy)

The Fourth Department determined charges stemming from the possession of a weapon in two counties triggered the protection against double jeopardy:

Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [3]). The charges arose from an incident in which defendant discharged a firearm into the bedroom window of an occupied, residential home in Oswego County during the early morning hours of March 5, 2012. Defendant was apprehended by the police later that day at a motel in Onondaga County, where a handgun was found in his vehicle. Prior to his trial in Oswego County Court, defendant was charged with and pleaded guilty to, in Onondaga County Court, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree for the handgun recovered from his vehicle. * * *

It is well settled that a defendant has “the right not to be punished more than once for the same crime” … . “When successive prosecutions are involved, the guarantee serves a constitutional policy of finality for the defendant’s benefit . . . and protects the accused from attempts to secure additional punishment after a prior conviction and sentence” … . This case presents a prototypical instance of a constitutional double jeopardy violation inasmuch as defendant was prosecuted and convicted of a crime in Oswego County to which he had pleaded guilty in Onondaga County. In both instances, the charge was the same: criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03 (3).

We reject the People’s contention that double jeopardy did not attach because defendant was convicted in Oswego County before he was sentenced on his guilty plea in Onondaga County. “[T]ermination of a criminal action by entry of a guilty plea constitutes a previous prosecution for double jeopardy purposes” … . People v Gardner, 2015 NY Slip Op 07363, 4th Dept 10-9-15

 

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

 

,

Court’s Erroneous Jury Instruction Re: State’s Territorial Jurisdiction Over the Alleged Crime Was Not a Mode of Proceedings Error—Objection Is Required to Preserve the Issue for Appeal

The First Department determined that the court’s erroneous jury instruction concerning the state’s terretorial jurisdiction over the case, as opposed to whether the state actually had territorial jurisdiction, required preservation by objection:

The trial court instructed the jury that the prosecution was required to establish the State’s territorial jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence. As the People concede, the charge was erroneous in this regard . On the contrary, the People were required to establish the State’s territorial jurisdiction by proof beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v McLaughlin, 80 NY2d at 470). Moreover, territorial jurisdiction is not waivable (id. at 471). Our analysis, however, does not end with a citation to McLaughlin. The issue before us involves the trial court’s charge on jurisdiction as opposed to jurisdiction itself. Although a challenge to a court’s territorial jurisdiction cannot be waived, a claim of error in a court’s instructions on the subject requires preservation by way of an appropriate objection at the court of first instance. Nonetheless, the requirement of preservation is subject to an exception that exists for “mode of proceedings” errors that consist of the most fundamental flaws implicating jurisdictional matters or constitutional rights that go to the very heart of the criminal justice process … . Defendant asserts that the mode of proceedings exception applies here. People v Carvajal (6 NY3d 305 [2005]), a case involving an interstate drug operation, is illustrative. In Carvajal, the Court noted that the defendant had “relinquished his opportunity to hold the People to their burden of proof, and did not preserve his current contention that the jury should have decided whether the People proved jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt” (id. at 311-312). Citing People v Greenberg (89 NY2d 553 [1997]), the Carvajal Court aptly observed that “a defendant’s failure to request a jury charge on territorial jurisdiction amounts to a waiver of a jury charge claim, that failure does not amount to waiver of the fundamental question whether – as a matter of law – this State has the power to hear the case” (id. at 312). In this case, it is undisputed that defendant did not object to the trial court’s erroneous charge on the burden of proof with respect to territorial jurisdiction. Guided by Carvajal, we find that defendant was required, but failed, to preserve his present challenge to the trial court’s charge on jurisdiction.  People v Polk, 2014 NY Slip Op 04561, 1st Dept 6-19-14

 

,

Officer Outside Village Limits Did Not Have Jurisdiction to Arrest for Traffic Offenses but Arrest for DWI Okay

The Fourth Department determined a police officer, who was outside his jurisdiction when he arrested the defendant for DWI and traffic offenses, did not have the authority to arrest for the “petty offenses” but did have the authority to arrest for DWI:

The authority of a police officer to arrest an individual for a “petty offense” is limited to circumstances in which the officer “has reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed such offense in his or her presence” (CPL 140.10 [1] [a]), and “only when .. . [s]uch offense was committed or believed by him or her to have been committed within the geographical area of such police officer’s employment or within one hundred yards of such geographical area” (CPL140.10 [2] [a]).  The term “petty offense” is defined as “a violation or a traffic infraction” (CPL 1.20 [39]). Here, the arresting officer is employed by the Village of Gowanda, and it is undisputed that the arrest did not take place within 100 yards of the village limits. Thus, we conclude that the officer exceeded his jurisdictional authority when he arrested defendant for committing the traffic infractions, and the court should have granted defendant’s motion insofar as it sought dismissal of those counts.

We further conclude, however, that the court properly refused to dismiss counts one and four of the indictment, charging defendant with felony driving while intoxicated and resisting arrest, respectively. Pursuant to CPL 140.10 (3), a police officer may arrest a person for a crime, as opposed to a petty offense, “whether or not such crime was committed within the geographical area of such police officer’s employment, and he or she may make such arrest within the state, regardless of the situs of the commission of the crime.”  People v Twoguns, 668, 4th Dept 7-5-13

 

County Court’s Jurisdiction Over Crimes Committed in Other Counties, Among Many Other Issues, Explained

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Egan, the Third Department affirmed the conviction of the director of facilities for the Schenectady City School District for arson, criminal possession of a weapon, criminal mischief and other offenses.  Among the issues (all resolved against the defendant) addressed in substantive discussions: (1) whether Schenectady County Court had jurisdiction over the counts of the indictment which were alleged to have occurred in other counties; (2) whether the jurisdictional facts were sufficiently alleged and proven; (3) severance of counts; (4) suppression of evidence found in a briefcase in an area for which a search warrant had been issued; (5) whether questions amounted to impermissible interrogation; (6) the admission of Molineux evidence; (7) whether testimony relating to non-testifying chemist’s findings in a report was a Crawford violation (a violation of the right of confrontation); (8) and the admissibility of demonstrative evidence.  With respect to the jurisdiction issue, the court wrote:

…[I]n order for prosecutorial jurisdiction to lie in Schenectady County for the extraterritorial crimes, defendant’s conduct must have “had, or was likely to have, a particular effect upon [the] [C]ounty . . . or part thereof, and [have been] performed with intent that it would, or with knowledge that it was likely to, have such particular effect therein” ….To that end criminal conduct has a “particular effect” upon a county when the consequences thereof “have a materially harmful impact upon the governmental processes or community welfare” of that county (CPL 20.10 [4]) such that the defendant’s out-of-county conduct “expose[s] a large number of county residents to a specific harm”… .In this regard, the injury alleged must  be  “concrete and  identifiable” and of the type that can be demonstrated by proof… .  The People bear the burden of proving  that venue is proper by a preponderance of the evidence, and whether the subject county has geographic jurisdiction over each of the charged offenses presents a factual issue for the jury to resolve … .  People v Raucci, 103996, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

Transfer to Another County for Probation Did Not Divest Sentencing Court of Jurisdiction Over Defendant’s Violation of His Intermittent Sentence​

In this case Columbia County Court sentenced defendant to intermittent imprisonment in the Columbia County jail and five years probation in Greene County where defendant resided.  After defendant failed to report to Columbia County Jail, County Court revoked the intermittent sentence and sentenced defendant to four months. Defendant contended Columbia County Court had relinquished jurisdiction by transferring the probation term to Greene County.  The Third Department disagreed:

Defendant’s reliance on CPL 410.80 – which provides for transfer of probation supervision by the sentencing court to the Probation Department in the jurisdiction (county) where  the defendant  resides at sentencing –  is misplaced … . Defendant was not charged  with violating probation but, rather, was  alleged to have violated his intermittent sentence of imprisonment.  The transfer in CPL  410.80 (2) of “all powers  and  duties” of the sentencing court over supervision of probationers to the receiving court does not, as defendant argues, divest the sentencing court of its express jurisdiction to modify  or revoke a sentence of intermittent imprisonment pursuant to Penal Law § 85.05 (1) (b) … . People v Dick, 104424, 3rd Dept, 5-23-13

 

,

Arrest Based on Out of State Warrant Not Authorized​

In reversing the denial of suppression, reversing the conviction and dismissing the indictment, the Second Department explained that the arrest based on out of state warrant (for a violation of probation) was not authorized.  A local criminal court warrant was required:

The detective had no authority to arrest the defendant based on his information that there was an out-of-state violation of probation warrant, as the detective did not obtain a warrant from a local criminal court pursuant to CPL 570.32. While CPL 570.34 provides that a police officer may also arrest a person in this State without a warrant “upon reasonable information that the accused stands charged in the courts of another state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”…, a violation of probation is not a “crime” … . People v Miranda-Hernandez, 2013 NY Slip Op 03346, 2nd Dept, 5-8-13

STREET STOPS, SUPPRESS

,

Failure to Request Jury Charge on Venue Waived Appeal of the Issue

The Third Department determined the failure to request a jury charge on venue waived any related appellate issue:

Initially, to the extent that defendant contends that the People failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence … that the underlying crimes  occurred  within the  geographical  jurisdiction of  Franklin County, we  note that “unlike territorial jurisdiction[,] which goes to the very essence of the State’s power to prosecute,” questions  regarding  geographical  jurisdiction or  venue are waivable … . Accordingly, inasmuch as defendant failed to request a jury charge on venue, she waived any challenge in this regard … .  People v Beauvais, 104590, 3rd Dept 4-4-13

 

,

Syracuse Police Officer Did Not Have Authority to Arrest in Town of DeWitt, Judge Abused Discretion During Jury Selection.

A City of Syracuse police detective was assigned to a security detail for a college athletic event.  The detective saw codefendant walk toward the gymnasium, turn around and walk back the way he came.  The detective followed the codefendant to a car. The detective then approached the codefendant and asked to speak with him.  Defendant, who had been in the car, got out of the car.  The detective smelled burnt marihuana and both codefendant and defendant admitted they had been smoking marihuana.  A consent search of the car turned up a loaded revolver leading to the defendant’s and codefendant’s arrest.  The encounter with the City of Syracuse detective actually took place in the Town of DeWitt, not the City of Syracuse.  The Fourth Department held, pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law section 140.50 (1), the City of Syracuse detective did not have statutory authority to stop and question the defendant outside “the geographical area of such officer’s employment…”.  The physical evidence was suppressed and the indictment dismissed on that basis.  The Fourth Department went on to hold that there was a valid alternative ground for reversal.  The jury selection process went very fast, proceeding group to group.  The judge told counsel that once the peremptory challenges for a particular group were finished, there would be no further opportunity to challenge anyone in that group.  One of the defense attorneys told the judge that the jury selection process was moving too fast and the defense did not want one of the jurors in the previous group.  The judge refused to allow a challenge of that juror.  The Fourth Department held the judge’s refusal was an abuse of discretion requiring reversal stating:  “ ‘We can detect no discernable interference or undue delay caused by [the] momentary oversight [of the attorneys for defendant and codefendant] that would justify [the court’s] hasty refusal to entertain [their] challenge….’ ”.  People v McGrew, 1453, KA 09-01308 Fourth Dept. 2-1-13

vehicle stops, street stops

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy