6 N.Y.3d 305 (2005)
New York may exercise criminal jurisdiction over a defendant for a possessory offense when the defendant conspired in New York to commit that offense, even if the actual possession occurred outside the state.
Summary
Alvaro Carvajal was convicted in New York of conspiracy and first-degree criminal possession of a controlled substance, stemming from a drug trafficking operation between California and New York. The drugs were seized in California, and Carvajal challenged New York’s jurisdiction over the possession charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that because Carvajal engaged in conspiratorial conduct in New York to possess the drugs, New York properly exercised jurisdiction under CPL 20.20(1)(c), even though the actual possession occurred in California.
Facts
Carvajal was part of a drug trafficking ring that transported cocaine from California to New York. He worked with Freddy Lasso, who ran the New York end of the operation. Wiretaps revealed that Carvajal coordinated shipments of cocaine from California to New York. On multiple occasions, large quantities of cocaine destined for New York were seized in California before reaching their destination. Carvajal visited New York to coordinate the operation, making phone calls to California and meeting with Lasso. He was eventually arrested in California.
Procedural History
Carvajal was indicted in New York on conspiracy and drug possession charges. At trial, he was convicted of conspiracy and three counts of first-degree criminal possession. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
- Whether New York had territorial jurisdiction over the first-degree criminal possession charges, given that the drugs were seized in California and Carvajal resided there?
Holding
- Yes, because Carvajal engaged in conduct within New York sufficient to establish a conspiracy to commit the possessory offense, New York properly exercised jurisdiction under CPL 20.20(1)(c).
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals based its decision on CPL 20.20(1)(c), which states that New York can exercise jurisdiction over an offense when conduct within the state establishes a conspiracy to commit that offense. The Court emphasized that Carvajal was physically present in New York and engaged in conspiratorial conduct by making phone calls and meeting with his New York associates to coordinate the drug shipments. The Court also cited CPL 20.60(1), which deems telephonic statements made from one jurisdiction to another to be made in both jurisdictions, thus establishing Carvajal’s conduct in furtherance of the conspiracy as occurring in New York. The Court distinguished this case from situations where a defendant’s only connection to New York is through telephone calls from another state, explicitly stating, “This would be a harder case if neither physical presence nor plans to bring the drugs to this state were evident and the only connection between defendant’s criminal conduct and New York consisted of telephone calls in which he spoke from California to his New York accomplices and coconspirators. That case is not before us and we express no opinion on it.”