New York Law Review

Tag: CPL 20.20

  • People v. Nieves, 88 N.Y.2d 618 (1996): Establishes Jurisdiction for Felony Murder When Death Occurs in New York, Even if Underlying Felony Occurred Elsewhere

    People v. Nieves, 88 N.Y.2d 618 (1996)

    New York State has jurisdiction to prosecute a defendant for felony murder when the homicide takes place within the state, even if the underlying felony is committed in another state, because the death within the state constitutes an element of the felony murder offense.

    Summary

    Orlando Nieves and John Stokes were convicted of felony murder after a robbery they committed in Connecticut led to a high-speed chase into New York, where their getaway car struck and killed a pedestrian. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that New York had jurisdiction because the death, an element of felony murder, occurred within the state. The Court reasoned that New York has a valid interest in prosecuting dangerous acts resulting in death within its borders, regardless of where the underlying felony occurred. This ruling clarifies the scope of New York’s criminal jurisdiction in interstate felony murder cases.

    Facts

    Defendant Nieves and a woman robbed a convenience store in Greenwich, Connecticut. Defendant Stokes drove the getaway car. Police pursued them into New York. During the high-speed chase in New York, Stokes drove recklessly to evade police. The getaway car swerved to avoid a truck and crashed into a bus shelter, killing Gladys Davis, a woman waiting there. After the crash, Nieves, Stokes, and the woman fled on foot and were apprehended by police.

    Procedural History

    Nieves and Stokes were charged in New York with, among other crimes, second-degree murder based on the felony murder provision of the Penal Law. Both were convicted by a jury. They appealed, arguing that New York lacked jurisdiction because the underlying felony (robbery) occurred in Connecticut. The Appellate Division rejected their arguments. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, upholding the convictions.

    Issue(s)

    Whether New York has jurisdiction to prosecute a defendant for felony murder when the underlying felony is committed in another state (Connecticut), but the homicide occurs in New York.

    Holding

    Yes, because the death of a nonparticipant in New York, during the immediate flight from a designated felony, constitutes an element of the crime of felony murder and thus satisfies New York’s jurisdictional requirements under CPL 20.20(1)(a).

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court based its decision on CPL 20.20(1)(a), which states that New York courts have jurisdiction when conduct within the state establishes an element of the offense. Felony murder requires the commission of a felony and the death of a non-participant “in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom” (Penal Law § 125.25 [3]). The Court emphasized that the death in New York was an element of the felony murder, thus establishing jurisdiction. The Court cited People v. Berzups, stating, “the underlying felony is not so much an element of the crime but instead functions as a replacement for the mens rea or intent necessary for common-law murder.” The Court reasoned that New York has a strong policy interest in deterring and punishing acts that result in death within its borders. The Court distinguished the felony murder statute from merely a sentence enhancement for the underlying felony, stating that the “language of Penal Law § 125.25 (3) evinces the Legislature’s desire to extend liability broadly to those who commit serious crimes in ways that endanger the lives of others” (citing People v. Hernandez, 82 NY2d 309, 318). The court noted, “[i]mmediate flight and attempts to thwart apprehension are patently within the furtherance of the cofelons’ criminal objective”.

  • People v. McLaughlin, 80 N.Y.2d 466 (1992): Burden of Proof for Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Cases

    People v. McLaughlin, 80 N.Y.2d 466 (1992)

    When a defendant challenges the State’s territorial jurisdiction in a criminal case, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alleged conduct or a consequence of it occurred within the state.

    Summary

    McLaughlin, a trustee, was convicted of forgery and larceny for actions related to two trusts and for filing false statements. He appealed, arguing the state lacked territorial jurisdiction over the offenses. The New York Court of Appeals held that when jurisdiction is challenged, the prosecution must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence as required for venue. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction concerns the State’s power to prosecute and is as critical as proving the elements of the crime itself. The Court reversed the convictions on the larceny and forgery counts, ordering a new trial with instructions to the lower court to charge the jury accordingly.

    Facts

    Defendant McLaughlin, as co-trustee of two trusts established by Ann L. Maytag, was convicted of:

    1. Double-billing travel expenses to both the Maytag and Poulos trusts for the same expenses.
    2. Altering an American Airlines passenger coupon.
    3. Making misrepresentations about his income, property, and debts on a financial disclosure filing with New York City.

    The defendant disputed the State’s territorial jurisdiction over these alleged offenses.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted in a jury trial. The Appellate Division dismissed one count (offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree) but affirmed the remaining convictions. The Appellate Division held that the prosecution didn’t need to establish jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt, as jurisdiction was not an element of the crime. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the case, focusing on the burden of proof required to establish territorial jurisdiction.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the People must prove territorial jurisdiction under CPL 20.20 beyond a reasonable doubt when the defendant puts jurisdiction in issue.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because the State’s power to prosecute depends on establishing that the crime or its consequences occurred within the state’s borders, and this must be proven to the same high standard as the elements of the crime itself.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that territorial jurisdiction is fundamental to the State’s power to prosecute. It stems from the territorial principle, meaning a state can only enforce criminal laws within its borders. Venue, on the other hand, is merely the proper location for the trial. The Court stated, “Because the State only has power to enact and enforce criminal laws within its territorial borders, there can be no criminal offense unless it has territorial jurisdiction.”

    Distinguishing venue from jurisdiction, the Court emphasized that unlike venue (which can be waived), territorial jurisdiction goes to the core of the State’s power and cannot be waived. The court rejected the argument that because the jury found venue proper by a preponderance of evidence, territorial jurisdiction was necessarily established. The Court stated that jurisdiction concerns the power of the State to bring the criminal proceeding, not the factual elements of the crime which must be proven for a conviction.

    The Court noted that “when the power of the State to try and convict the defendant is disputed… proof of that power is no less critical to a legal conviction than proof of the elements of the crime.”

    The Court cited existing authority in New York and other jurisdictions supporting the requirement to prove territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, the Court determined that a new trial was necessary with instructions to charge the jury that jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if it is put in issue. The court also noted that a missing witness charge should have been given regarding the People’s failure to call John Poulos as a witness.