Return to Return to Non-CALJIC Defenses – Contents
F 4.014 n1 Multiple Crimes: Territorial Jurisdiction.
Effective 1/1/99, AB 2734, Ch. 302 added PC 784.7 to vest territorial jurisdiction for two or more violations of PC 261, PC 262, PC 264.1, PC 273a, PC 273.5, PC 286, PC 288, PC 288a, PC 288.5, PC 289 or PC 646.9 that occur in more than one territorial jurisdiction, in any jurisdiction where at least one offense occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all the offenses.
Price v. Superior Court (People) (2001) 25 C4th 1046, 1052, 1075, 1078 [108 CR2d 409] held that PC 784.7 is not unconstitutional and that applying the statute to pending cases does not violate ex post facto principles.
F 4.014 n2 Territorial Jurisdiction: Crimes Committed Within 500 Yards Of Prosecuting County.
See People v. Walsh REV GTD/DISD/DEPUB (2000) 81 CA4th 911, 915 [97 CR2d 209] [territorial jurisdiction exists for crimes committed within 500 yards of prosecuting county per PC 782].
F 4.014 n3 Whether Subject Matter Jurisdiction/Territorial Jurisdiction Is A Jury Question.
There is a pronounced split of authority as to whether a state’s jurisdiction is a question for the court or for the jury. Most states have held that if the facts on which jurisdiction depends are controverted, resolution of those disputed facts must be left to the jury. (See State v. Willoughby (AZ 1995) 892 P2d 1319, 1325; People v. Cullen (CO 1984) 695 P2d 750, 751; Sheeran v. State (DE 1987) 526 A2d 886, 890; Lane v. State (FL 1980) 388 So2d 1022, 1028;McKinney v. State (IN 1990) 553 NE2d 860, 863-64; State v. Liggins (IA 1994) 524 NW2d 181, 184-85; State v. Collin (ME 1997) 687 A2d 962, 964; State v. Butler (MD 1999) 724 A2d 657, 663; People v. McLaughlin (NY 1992) 606 NE2d 1357, 1359-60; State v. Batdorf (NC 1977) 238 SE2d 497, 502-503; Commonwealth v. Bighum (PA 1973) 307 A2d 255, 258, receded from on other grounds in Commonwealth v. Randall (PA 1987) 528 A2d 1326; State v. Beall (TN 1986) 729 SW2d 270, 271.)
A minority of jurisdictions have held that the issue is not for the jury but for the court. (State v. Beverly (CT 1993) 618 A2d 1335, 1338; Mitchell v. U.S. (DC 1990) 569 A2d 177, 180; Adair v. U.S. (DC 1978) 391 A2d 288, 290; State v. Reldan (NJ 1982) 449 A2d 1317; but see State v. Bragg (NJ 1996) 685 A2d 488, 491-92; State v. Belloli (RI 2001) 766 A2d 928, 932; State v. Halstead (RI 1980) 414 A2d 1138, 1144.)
People v. Betts (2005) 34 C4th 1039 held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is one for the judge, not the jury.
F 4.014 n4 Applicability Of Apprendi/Ring To Subject Matter/Territorial Jurisdiction.
People v. Betts (2005) 34 C4th 1039 held that Apprendi (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 US 466 [147 LEd2d 435; 120 SCt 2348] and Ring (Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 US 584 [153 LEd2d 556; 122 SCt 2428] do not apply to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. (See also Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 US 296 [159 LEd2d 403; 124 SCt 2531].)
F 4.014 n5 Standard Of Proof: Subject Matter/Territorial Jurisdiction.
People v. Cavanaugh (55) 44 C2d 255, 262 [282 P2d 53] held that subject matter jurisdiction need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
F 4.014 n6 Jurisdiction: Parent Who Kidnaps Own Child To Another Country.
See People v. Lazarevich (2004) 124 CA4th 140 [subject matter jurisdiction established in California where parent harbored children outside of the country in violation of California court order].
Territorial Jurisdiction As A Factual Question For The Judge
ALERT: People v.Betts (2005) 34 C4th 1039 held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is one for the judge, not the jury.
The question of whether the state of California has territorial jurisdiction over any crimes committed outside of California is for you, the jury, to determine. To establish territorial jurisdiction the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, with intent to commit a crime, committed an act within the state of California which culminated in the commission of a crime outside the state of California. Both the act and the specific intent to commit the crime must have occurred in California. To trigger California’s territorial jurisdiction, the act and specific intent must have been sufficient to constitute a criminal attempt.
[Insert CJ 6.00 “Attempt–Defined” here.]
Points and Authorities
Unlike the question of venue (see FORECITE F 4.012a) territorial jurisdiction, as specified in PC 778(a), is strictly construed so that California lacks territorial jurisdiction to prosecute a crime consummated outside the state unless the acts within it are sufficient to constitute a criminal attempt. (People v. Chapman (77) 72 CA3d 6, 10 [139 CR 808].) Thus, if the defendant did not form the specific intent to commit the crime until outside of California, then there is no territorial jurisdiction in California. (Id. at 12.)
Failure to adequately instruct upon a defense or defense theory implicates the defendant’s state (Art. I, § 15 and § 16) and federal (6th and 14th Amendments) constitutional rights to trial by jury, compulsory process and due process. [See FORECITE PG VII(C).]