Title: Marsh v. State
Citation: 620 P.2d 878, 95 N.M. 224
Docket Number: N/A
State: new-mexico
Issuer: new-mexico Supreme Court
Date: December 5, 1980

620 P.2d 878 (1980) 95 N.M. 224 Albert James MARSH and Harold R. (Bob) Bass, Petitioners, v. STATE of New Mexico, Respondent. STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Albert James MARSH and Harold R. (Bob) Bass, Respondents. Nos. 12923, 12924. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 5, 1980. Marchiondo &amp; Berry, William C. Marchiondo, Albuquerque, Warren O.F. Harris, Albuquerque, for Marsh &amp; Bass. Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., James F. Blackmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for the State. SOSA, Chief Justice. Three issues are raised on certiorari: (1) whether the State has jurisdiction over crimes occurring in the airspace above New Mexico; (2) which county has proper venue in a conspiracy charge; and (3) which county has proper venue for a charge of possession of marijuana? The grand jury of Valencia County indicted defendants for the possession of over one hundred pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy to commit a felony. After a hearing, the district *879 judge dismissed the indictments on the basis that jurisdiction and venue were not proper in Valencia County. The State alleged that defendant Marsh flew a small plane laden with 479 pounds of marijuana over Valencia County en route to McKinley County to rendezvous with defendant Bass, where the marijuana was unloaded. There was no evidence that Bass was ever in Valencia County or that Marsh ever set his plane down there. The State appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals. That Court affirmed the dismissal of the conspiracy charge and reversed the dismissal of the possession charge. Both parties petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, which we granted. We hold that the district court had jurisdiction and venue over both charges, but we also use our superintending control to mandate that the cause be transferred to McKinley County where the action would be more proper. The first issue we consider is whether the State has jurisdiction over crimes committed in an airplane as it flies above the State. Defendants contend that the State's jurisdiction has been preempted by federal legislation. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the State's criminal jurisdiction has not been preempted and quote from the opinion by Judge Lopez: 19 N.M.St.B.Bull. 182, 183 (1980). Other cases which we find persuasive are Ward v. State, 280 Md. 485, 374 A.2d 1118 (Ct.App. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1011, 98 S. Ct. 723, 54 L. Ed. 2d 754 (1978), which upheld a state statute making reckless flying a crime, Graham v. People, 134 Colo. 290, 302 P.2d 737 (1956) which implicitly recognized the jurisdiction of the state over homicides taking place in the air, and State v. Bahl, 242 N.W.2d 298 (Iowa 1976) which sustained a conviction of manslaughter by flying while intoxicated. We agree with the Court of Appeals that state courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed in the airspace above the state. The next issues we consider are whether venue was proper in Valencia County for the conspiracy charge and for the charge of possession. The Court of Appeals treated the issues separately, and concluded that venue was improper for the conspiracy charge and proper for the possession charge. They reasoned that venue for a conspiracy charge was in the county where the conspiracy was formed, and there was no evidence that it was formed in Valencia County. The Court further reasoned that even if venue would also lie in the county where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred, such an act did not occur in Valencia County. We disagree that an overt act did not occur in Valencia County. The transportation of marijuana through the county was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. We agree with the Court of Appeals that venue was proper in Valencia County on the possession charge. They reasoned that venue was proper in Valencia County for the possession charge because a "material element" of the crime was committed in Valencia County, and where there is a continuing crime, venue lies in any county through which the defendant travelled. See State v. McKinley, 30 N.M. 54, 227 P. 757 (1924). We hold that, although venue was proper in Valencia County for both charges, it would be more appropriate to try the case, if at all, in McKinley County where there is a more substantial nexus between the criminal acts and the county. Under the facts of this case, where the only contact with Valencia County was the passage of the airplane carrying the marijuana over it, we invoke our superintending powers over inferior courts to direct the District Court of Valencia County to transfer the case so that it can be tried, if at all, in McKinley County. N.M.Const., Art. VI, § 3. The facts that the marijuana was physically located in McKinley County, that defendant Marsh flew his plane carrying the illegal drug there to meet with defendant Bass, and that the alleged conspiracy ended there support our conclusion. In United States v. Johnson, 323 U.S. 273, 275, 65 S. Ct. 249, 89 L. Ed. 236 (1944) the Supreme Court, in discussing the United States Constitution, wrote: These policy considerations also apply to the choice of venue within a State. In the present case, it appears from the record that the State attempted to prosecute in Valencia County because one of the defendants may have been related to a district court judge in McKinley County. If so, there are other legal avenues available to the State to make sure the criminal process is a fair one. We reverse the trial court's dismissal of both charges for lack of proper venue. We hold that venue was proper for both charges in Valencia County but exercise our superintending control to remand and direct that the case be transferred to McKinley County to be tried there, if at all, as the county having the most significant contacts with the alleged criminal acts of the defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED. PAYNE, FEDERICI and FELTER, JJ., and EASLEY, Senior Justice, concur.