Relates to geographical jurisdiction of offenses

4 Co-sponsors

• Ruben Diaz
• Ruth Hassell-Thompson
• Liz Krueger
• Kevin S. Parker

Title of bill

An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to geographical jurisdiction of offenses

This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of her Advisory Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure.

This measure would amend the Criminal Procedure Law to establish a basis for a county to have jurisdiction over criminal conduct where, although New York State has jurisdiction over the conduct, no county can establish jurisdiction under current law.

The Court of Appeals recently affirmed the dismissal of a perjury prosecution stemming from an out-of state deposition where the defendant was questioned by the New York State Attorney General's office in connection with an ongoing New York State antitrust investigation (see People v Zimmerman, 9 NY3d 421 2007 ). The Court held that while New York State had jurisdiction to prosecute the alleged perjury, it could find no basis for the defendant to be prosecuted in New York County or in any other county in the state. The Court acknowledged the principle that once the State has jurisdiction to prosecute a case, it can "as a general rule, assign the trial of that case to any county it chooses" (9 NY3d at 428-429). But, for a county to prosecute, the Legislature must provide a specific jurisdictional basis. Under the current legislative scheme there is simply no provision to allow any county to have jurisdiction over a case which only impacts the State as a whole. As explicitly stated by the Court, the current statute leaves a gap that the Court is not permitted to fill. Instead, the Court suggested that it is up to the Legislature to fill the gap (see id at 430).

In order to provide a basis for jurisdiction in an appropriate county under the situation faced by the prosecution in Zimmerman, this measure would add a new paragraph (f) to CPL 20.40(2), to allow a county to exercise jurisdiction if there is a "logical nexus" between the criminal conduct and the county. By the statute's express terms, it would only operate in cases where no other basis for a county to exercise jurisdiction can be established. Therefore, it does not extend the current reach of the remaining provisions of CPL 20.40(2), and is limited solely to closing the legislative "gap" recognized by the Court of Appeals in Zimmerman.

This measure, which would have no fiscal impact on the State, would take effect on the first day of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law and apply only to offenses where the conduct constituting the offense occurred on or after such date.

2008 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

None. New proposal.