77 N.Y.2d 284 (1991)

In conspiracy cases, venue must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and the failure to submit the question of venue to the jury is not harmless error if the defendant contests the evidence supporting venue and the jury’s verdict does not necessarily imply a finding that venue was proper.

Summary

Defendants, chiropractors, were convicted of conspiracy and falsifying business records for allegedly defrauding insurance companies with an attorney. The trial court denied their request to submit the questions of venue and the statute of limitations to the jury. The Appellate Division reversed the conspiracy convictions due to the Statute of Limitations issue and deemed the venue error harmless. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on venue was not harmless error and reversed the convictions for falsifying business records as well because the jurisdictional predicate for those charges depended on the conspiracy conviction.

Facts

Defendants, chiropractors practicing in the New York City area, allegedly conspired with an attorney to defraud insurance companies by fabricating injuries and treatment of accident victims. As a result, the defendants were convicted of conspiracy and falsifying business records in Kings County. The alleged agreement was not entered into in Kings County, and none of the substantive crimes of falsifying business records occurred there. The indictment alleged 100 overt acts, with only seven specified as occurring within Kings County. Evidence was presented of only one of these seven at trial, but evidence of other unspecified overt acts in Kings County was also presented.

Procedural History

The trial was held in Kings County, where defendants requested the court to submit the questions of venue and the Statute of Limitations to the jury, which was denied. The Appellate Division reversed the conspiracy convictions, remitting for a new trial due to Statute of Limitations concerns, but affirmed the convictions for falsifying business records, deeming the failure to charge the jury on venue as harmless error. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

1. Whether the trial court’s failure to submit the question of venue to the jury was harmless error.

2. Whether reversal of the conspiracy charge requires reversal of the substantive crimes of falsifying business records.

Holding

1. No, because defendants contested the evidence supporting venue, and the jury’s verdict did not necessarily imply a finding that venue was proper.

2. Yes, because the jurisdictional predicate for the falsifying business records charges depended on a finding of proper venue for the conspiracy charge.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the failure to submit the question of venue to the jury is not harmless where the defendant contests the evidence supporting venue and the jury’s verdict does not necessarily imply a finding that venue was proper. It is not enough that the record contains evidence of conduct within the county asserting jurisdiction; the jury must have made a finding that venue was proper. The court noted that because the agreement was not entered into in Kings County and none of the substantive crimes occurred there, the People were required to prove the commission of an overt act in Kings County to sustain jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that because the evidence of overt acts in Kings County was contested and because it was unclear which acts the jury relied on to support its conviction on the conspiracy charge, the failure to submit the question of venue to the jury could not be deemed harmless. Regarding the substantive crimes, the Court held that because jurisdiction over those charges was predicated on the conspiracy charge, the reversal of the conspiracy charge also required reversal of the falsifying business records counts, because there remained no jurisdictional predicate for these charges in the absence of a finding of proper venue by the jury on the conspiracy charge. The Court quoted from prior cases noting that “In order to sustain jurisdiction over the conspiracy and substantive charges against defendants, the People were required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the commission of an overt act in Kings County by a member of the conspiracy with whom defendant had agreed to engage in criminal conduct”.