THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257
Go to Volume 11 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 257 Table of Contents

257.10 Territorial Jurisdiction

    257.10.1 Jurisdiction As A Question Of Fact For The Jury
    257.10.2 Territorial Jurisdiction: Crime Consummated, Or Some Acts Committed, Outside Of The State
    257.10.3 Territorial Jurisdiction: Homicide -- Based On Place Where Cause Of Death Was Inflicted
    257.10.4 Territorial Jurisdiction: Crime Involving Omission Or Failure To Act
    257.10.5 Crime Has Only One Situs

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257

RATIONALE: When the existence of territorial jurisdiction depends on factual determinations the jury should be instructed on the factual decisions it is required to make.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: Territorial jurisdiction is a legal issue and not a question for the jury unless the jurisdiction depends on resolving facts in dispute. In the latter case, the jury must resolve the issue. (Commonwealth v. Bighum (PA 1973) 307 A2d 255, 258; see also WISCONSIN JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, WIS-JI-Criminal 268 [Law Note: Jurisdiction], comment (University of Wisconsin Law School, 2000); see also State v. L.J.M. (WA 1996) 918 P2d 898, 902-03 [territorial jurisdiction as affirmative defense].)

    As to whether the element of federal jurisdiction is a question of law or fact, see O'Malley, Grenig & Lee, FEDERAL JURY PRACTICE AND INSTRUCTIONS 45.09, notes (West, 5th ed. 2000).

    See also NCJIC 300.10.4 [Constitutional Right To Jury Determination Of Factual Component Of Mixed Questions Of Law And Fact].

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].

RESEARCH NOTES:

LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) § 2.7, 2.8 and 2.9.

Wharton’s Criminal Law (15th Ed. 1993) § 14.

    To convict the defendant of the offense of ___________, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that the following acts occurred within the [state of _________________ ] [federal jurisdiction of ______________].

[Source: NCJIC.]

    We, the jury, find beyond a reasonable doubt that the following acts occurred within the [state of _______________] [federal jurisdiction of _________________].

[Source: NCJIC.]

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257

RATIONALE: A special instruction may be necessary to explain the elements of territorial jurisdiction when the crime is consummated or some acts are committed outside of the state.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: A special jury issue may be presented with regard to territorial jurisdiction if the crime is begun in one state but consummated in another. For example, in California, there is no jurisdiction unless the defendant's acts and intent in California were sufficient to constitute at least a criminal attempt. (People v. Chapman (CA 1977) 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; cf., State v. Doyen (VT 1996) 676 A2d 345, 349 [requirement of attempt inapplicable to crime of omission and to crime that has harmful effects within state].)

    On the other hand, if the acts are committed outside of the state the "effects doctrine" may create jurisdiction in the state where the crime is consummated. (In re Vasquez (MA 1999) 705 NE2d 606, 610 ["effects doctrine" provides that acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a State in punishing cause of harm as if he had been present at the effect].)

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].

    The question of whether the state of _______________ has territorial jurisdiction over any crimes committed outside of _____________ 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 ______________ which culminated in the commission of a crime outside the state of ____________. Both the act and the specific intent to commit the crime must have occurred in ______________. To trigger ______________'s territorial jurisdiction, the act and specific intent must have been sufficient to constitute a criminal attempt.

[Source: NCJIC.]

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257

PRACTICE NOTE: In the federal system, the jurisdiction for murder or manslaughter is determined by the place where the injury or other cause of death was inflicted. (See Cissell, Federal Criminal Trials (Lexis, 5th ed. 1999) § 1-1.) For example, if a person is injured outside the territorial jurisdiction of the federal government but later dies as a result of that injury within the federal jurisdiction, there is no federal jurisdiction over the crime. (See U.S. v. Parker (8th Cir. 1980) 622 F2d 298, 302.)

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257

    257.10.4    Territorial Jurisdiction: Crime Involving Omission Or Failure To Act

PRACTICE NOTE: A crime involving a failure to act is committed at the place where the act is required to be performed for the purposes of territorial jurisdiction. (See State v. Gantt (WI 1996) 548 NW2d 134, 136; see also Commonwealth v. Boyle (PA 1985) 500 A2d 1221, 1222 [place designated for execution of legally imposed act determines situs of crime of failure to perform that act, for purposes of jurisdiction over criminal proceedings]; U.S. v. Murphy (4th Cir. 1997) 117 F3d 137, 141; U.S. v. Muench (11th Cir 1998) 153 F3d 1298, 1302; Commonwealth v. Boyle (PA 1987) 532 A2d 306, 310.)

THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTION COMPENDIUM
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 257

PRACTICE NOTE: A crime has only one situs, and only the place of the situs has jurisdiction. (See LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) § 2.9(a) [describing common-law rule].) The situs is the place of the act or omission if the crime is defined only in those terms, but the situs is the place of the result if the result is an element of the crime. (Ibid.; see also State v. Doyen (VT 1996) 676 A2d 345, 349.)