Steingut v. Gold, 42 N.Y.2d 311 (1977)
For a county to assert criminal jurisdiction based on the “injured forum” provision, the criminal activity must have a materially harmful impact on the governmental processes or community welfare of that county, and the activity must have been performed with the intent or knowledge that such an impact was likely to occur there.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether Kings County had jurisdiction to indict the Steinguts for corrupt use of position, based on actions in New York County. The alleged crime involved a promise to assist someone in obtaining an appointment in exchange for campaign contributions to Robert Steingut, who was running for office in Kings County. The Court held that the “injured forum” provision of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL 20.40, subd. 2) did not confer jurisdiction on Kings County because the alleged criminal activity did not have a sufficiently material and demonstrable harmful impact on the governmental processes or community welfare of Kings County. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s grant of a writ of prohibition preventing Kings County from prosecuting the Steinguts.
Facts
Robert Steingut, seeking election as Councilman-at-Large in Kings County, and his father, Stanley Steingut, allegedly met with Hans Rubenfeld in New York County. During the meeting, they purportedly promised to help Rubenfeld obtain an appointment to the Civilian Complaint Review Board in exchange for Rubenfeld arranging a fundraising dinner and contributing to Robert Steingut’s campaign. Rubenfeld contributed $2,500, but the dinner never occurred.
Procedural History
A Kings County Grand Jury indicted the Steinguts for corrupt use of position. The Steinguts moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing Kings County lacked jurisdiction. The motion was denied. The Steinguts then initiated an Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the prosecution. The Appellate Division granted the petition. The Kings County District Attorney appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the “injured forum” provision of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL 20.40, subd. 2) conferred geographical jurisdiction on Kings County to indict and prosecute the Steinguts for alleged offenses that occurred entirely in New York County.
Holding
No, because the alleged criminal activity did not have a materially harmful impact on the governmental processes or community welfare of Kings County, nor was it performed with the intent or knowledge that such an impact was likely to occur there.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals held that while prohibition is a proper remedy to challenge geographical jurisdiction, Kings County lacked such jurisdiction in this case. The court emphasized that under common law, criminal offenses are prosecuted where they are committed. CPL 20.40(2) provides an exception, allowing jurisdiction in a county where conduct outside the county has a “particular effect.” CPL 20.10(4) defines “particular effect” as a “materially harmful impact upon the governmental processes or community welfare.” The court found that the mere fact that the election was to take place in Kings County was insufficient to establish the required “particular effect.” The court reasoned that a contrary interpretation would allow any county in the state to assert jurisdiction over a statewide election tainted by criminal activity localized in a single county, which was not the intent of the statute. The court noted, “The type of injury or offense contemplated by the statute must be perceptible and of the character and type which can be demonstrated by proof before a Grand Jury.” Furthermore, the indictment itself failed to specify the effect the purported crime would have on Kings County, stating only in a conclusory fashion that the defendants’ conduct had and was likely to have a particular effect on Kings County. The court found that there was no evidence presented to the Grand Jury that the alleged criminal activity was performed with the intent or knowledge that a materially harmful impact would occur in Kings County. Therefore, Kings County lacked the power to indict and prosecute the Steinguts.