THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, APPELLANT.
80 N.Y.2d 466, 606 N.E.2d 1357, 591 N.Y.S.2d 966 (1992).
December 16, 1992
1 No. 262
Decided December 16, 1992
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Thomas P. Puccio, for Appellant.
Donald J. Siewert, for Respondent.
HANCOCK, J.:
After a jury trial on a sixteen count indictment, defendant was
convicted of forgery and larceny for misconduct as the trustee of two
trusts, and of filing false statements in a questionnaire submitted to
the New York City Department of Investigation. In this opinion, we
discuss one of his contentions on appeal which raises a significant
question of first impression for our Court: i.e., when a defendant
disputes the State's territorial jurisdiction over the alleged
offense, what burden of proof must the People meet to establish that
conduct occurred within the State to satisfy the jurisdictional
requirements of CPL 20.20? Is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as
defendant argues; or, as the People would have it, the lesser burden
of preponderance of the evidence required to establish venue in the
proper county under CPL 20.40? We hold that when jurisdiction under
CPL 20.20 is put in issue, the People must prove it beyond a
reasonable doubt. Accordingly, as will be explained, there should be a
new trial on three of the four counts before us on appeal.
I
The larceny and forgery counts (counts 5, 6 and 7) on which defendant
was convicted stemmed from his actions as co- trustee of two trusts
established by Ann L. Maytag, granddaughter of the founder of the
Maytag appliance manufacturer -- one for her benefit (the Maytag
trust) and one for the benefit for her son, John C. Poulos (the Poulos
trust). Among the acts giving rise to these convictions were the
double-billing of travel expenses for reimbursement from both trusts
for the same expenses (counts 5 and 6) and the alteration of the fare
on an American Airlines passenger coupon (count 7). The jury also
convicted defendant for offering a false instrument for filing in the
SNIPPETS:
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
After a jury trial on a sixteen count indictment, defendant was convicted of forgery and
Is it proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as defendant argues; or, as the People would have it,
We hold that when jurisdiction under CPL 20.20 is put in issue, the People must prove it
The larceny and forgery counts on which defendant was convicted stemmed from his actions as
On appeal, the Appellate Division found that the evidence was insufficient to support a
The Appellate Division rejected defendant's contention that the Trial Court should not have
In dismissing defendant's argument that the Court had committed error in its charge on the
Our analysis starts with the proposition that the basis of the State's jurisdiction in
Jurisdiction in this sense is a question of the sovereign's power to prosecute and punish an
Because the State only has power to enact and enforce criminal laws within its territorial
They argue, nevertheless, that "it is not for that reason logically required that
Whether any conduct has been committed which the State has the power to criminalize and for
The People also argue that because the jury found that venue was properly laid in New York
When the power of the State to try and convict the defendant is disputed, however, proof of
The order of the Appellate Division should be modified in accordance with this opinion and,
Acting Chief Judge Simons and Judges Kaye,
|
