9 N.Y.3d 421 (2007)
For a county to assert criminal jurisdiction over an offense based on its ‘particular effect’ under CPL 20.40(2)(c), the defendant must have intended or known that their actions would have a materially harmful impact on the governmental processes or community welfare of that specific county.
Summary
The New York Court of Appeals held that New York County lacked jurisdiction to prosecute James Zimmerman for perjury. Zimmerman, while testifying in Ohio as part of a New York Attorney General’s antitrust investigation, allegedly made false statements. The court reasoned that the evidence presented to the grand jury did not establish that Zimmerman intended or knew his statements would have a concrete and identifiable injury to either New York County’s governmental processes or its community welfare. This case highlights the difficulty in establishing county jurisdiction when the impact of an out-of-state action is primarily felt at the state level.
Facts
The New York Attorney General investigated Federated Department Stores and others for antitrust violations. James Zimmerman, Federated’s CEO, testified in Ohio during the investigation. The Attorney General’s office had agreed to examine Zimmerman in Cincinnati as an accommodation. Subsequently, Zimmerman was indicted in New York County for perjury based on his testimony. The indictment alleged that his perjury was intended to prevent a particular effect in New York County and State.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court dismissed the indictment, finding that Zimmerman’s acts had no ‘particular effect’ on New York County. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the evidence did not show that Zimmerman was aware his statements would have a deleterious effect on the governmental or judicial processes of New York County. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the evidence presented to the grand jury established that Zimmerman’s alleged perjury in Ohio had, or was likely to have, a particular effect upon New York County, such that New York County has jurisdiction to prosecute him for perjury under CPL 20.40(2)(c).
Holding
No, because the evidence presented to the grand jury did not establish that Zimmerman intended or knew that his alleged perjurious statements would have a concrete and identifiable injury to either New York County’s governmental processes or the welfare of the County’s community.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that for prosecutorial jurisdiction to lie in New York County, that county must suffer a particular effect as a result of the defendant’s alleged conduct. This requires a concrete and identifiable injury to either the county’s governmental processes or the welfare of the county’s community. The impact must be more than minor or incidental, harming the well-being of the community as a whole. The court found no evidence that Zimmerman intended or knew his actions would materially and harmfully affect New York County’s judicial processes. While Zimmerman’s perjury may have been designed to mislead the New York State Attorney General and frustrate his investigation, there was no evidence that Zimmerman’s conduct was intended to have, or was likely to have, any materially harmful impact on the governmental processes or community welfare of New York County specifically. The Court acknowledged a gap in the ‘particular effect’ venue statutory scheme, highlighting that while the State had jurisdiction, no county did. The Court noted, “[a]bsent [a] statutory exception, … the territorial unit for criminal prosecutions is [a] county”.