Opinion ID: 4526093
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Territorial Applicability

Text: [¶23] Lindell argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider conduct in which he allegedly engaged while in California and therefore erred by admitting evidence of that conduct related to the theft and tax evasion charges. He contends that, because conviction of a crime in a Maine state court requires that the conduct that is an element of the crime occur in Maine, and he did not engage in any “conduct” in Maine with regard to certain counts, he cannot be convicted on those particular counts as a matter of law. He raised this defense with regard to Counts 1 and 2 (theft by unauthorized taking), and Counts 8, 9, and 10 (intentional evasion of tax). 16 [¶24] Criminal convictions in Maine state courts are limited, in part, by a statutory territorial applicability provision, 17-A M.R.S. § 7 (2018). This provision states, “[A] person may be convicted under the laws of this State for any crime committed by the person’s own conduct . . . only if . . . the conduct that is an element of the crime or the result that is such an element occurs within this State.” 17-A M.R.S. §§ 7(1); see State v. Collin, 1997 ME 6, ¶ 9, 687 A.2d 962. Theft by unauthorized taking or transfer has three elements: the person (1) obtains or exercises unauthorized control; (2) over the property of another; (3) with intent to deprive the other person of the property. 17-A M.R.S. § 353(1)(A); State v. Nelson, 1998 ME 183, ¶ 5, 714 A.2d 832. Intentional evasion of tax is prohibited by 36 M.R.S. § 184-A, and occurs when “[a] person . . . intentionally attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax.” [¶25] Lindell is legally accountable for his conduct if “[e]ither the conduct that is an element of the crime or the result that is such an element occurs within this State or has a territorial relationship to this State.” 17-A M.R.S. § 7(1)(A). With regard to the theft charges and the tax evasion charges, the evidence establishes that Lindell engaged in conduct that constituted an element of the crime, and that conduct occurred in Maine, or the result of the conduct that was an element of the crime occurred in Maine or had 17 a territorial relationship with Maine. Lindell misappropriated money from Maine bank accounts while acting as trustee of a trust established under Maine law and while acting as the co-personal representative of an estate submitted for probate under Maine law. Lindell transmitted falsified tax returns to the Maine Revenue Service, located in Maine, evading income tax that he was legally required to pay in the State of Maine. The trial court did not err in concluding that Lindell’s conduct satisfied the territorial applicability requirement of Maine law.