6 N.Y.3d 614 (2006)
A state can exercise criminal jurisdiction over an offense if conduct within the state is sufficient to establish an element of the offense, particularly when the conduct demonstrates the intent to commit a crime, even if the crime is completed in another jurisdiction.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether New York had jurisdiction to prosecute the defendant for attempted possession of a controlled substance when the defendant’s actions in New York showed intent to purchase drugs, even though the actual drug transaction occurred in Massachusetts. The Court held that New York did have jurisdiction because the defendant’s conduct in New York established an element of the attempted possession offense: the intent to possess the drugs for sale in New York. The Court emphasized that the defendant’s actions went beyond mere planning and constituted concrete steps toward acquiring the drugs.
Facts
Salvatore Lombardi, a Brooklyn resident, conspired with others, including the defendant (a pharmacologist), to purchase heroin for sale in New York. Lombardi raised $120,000 for a courier fee. Wiretaps revealed the defendant’s involvement in testing the heroin’s purity. The defendant, along with two accomplices, flew to Boston. Lombardi later joined them. An undercover agent posing as a drug courier met with the accomplices in Boston, displaying heroin. The accomplices tested the heroin samples but ultimately rejected the deal. The defendant and his accomplices were arrested at the airport with $120,000. Booth had drug-testing equipment. Criminal proceedings began in New York.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in New York of conspiracy and attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance. He challenged New York’s jurisdiction over the attempted possession charge. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. This appeal followed.
Issue(s)
Whether New York had territorial jurisdiction under Criminal Procedure Law 20.20(1)(a) to prosecute the defendant for attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance when the actual drug transaction occurred in Massachusetts, but significant conduct demonstrating intent occurred in New York.
Holding
Yes, because the People offered sufficient proof of conduct within New York establishing an element of the attempted possession offense, namely the defendant’s intent to possess more than four ounces of a narcotic drug for eventual sale in New York.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court focused on CPL 20.20(1)(a), which allows conviction in New York if conduct within the state establishes an element of the offense. The Court reviewed the elements of attempted criminal possession, requiring intent and conduct that came