Opinion ID: 1679163
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Traditionally, at least under the common law, jurisdiction to subject an accused to criminal prosecution rests in the courts of the state in which the crime was committed. Charles E. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law 83-84 (15th ed. 1993). The theory of territorial jurisdiction is preserved to some degree by the United States and Iowa Constitutions. The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides the right to trial in the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.  (Emphasis added.) Article V, section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Iowa provides the district court shall have jurisdiction in civil and criminal matters arising in their respective districts.... (Emphasis added.) Iowa, by statute, provides that a criminal action shall be tried in the county in which the crime is committed, except as otherwise provided by law. Iowa Code § 803.2(1) (1989). The territorial principle of jurisdiction has been enlarged in a number of states by statute. Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Criminal Law § 17, at 122-25 (1972). Criminal territorial jurisdiction in Iowa is expanded by Iowa Code section 803.1 which provides in part: 1. A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which the person commits within or outside this state, by the person's own conduct or that of another for which the person is legally accountable, if: a. The offense is committed either wholly or partly within this state. b. Conduct of the person outside the state constitutes an attempt to commit an offense within this state. c. Conduct of the person outside the state constitutes a conspiracy to commit an offense within this state. d. Conduct of the person within this state constitutes an attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit an offense in another jurisdiction, which conduct is punishable under the laws of both this state and such other jurisdiction. 2. An offense may be committed partly within this state if conduct which is an element of the offense, or a result which constitutes an element of the offense, occurs within this state. If the body of a murder victim is found within the state, the death is presumed to have occurred within the state. (Emphasis added.) We believe state territorial jurisdiction is an essential element of the crime. As such the issue is properly submitted at trial. Only if the jurisdictional facts are undisputed should the court determine the issue by pretrial order. See, e.g., State v. Smith, 421 N.W.2d 315, 321 (Minn.1988). The State is required to prove territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt. Other states consider territorial jurisdiction an element of an offense that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., People v. Holt, 91 Ill.2d 480, 492, 64 Ill.Dec. 550, 556, 440 N.E.2d 102, 108 (1982); McKinney v. State, 553 N.E.2d 860, 863 (Ind. App.3d Dis.1990); State v. Martin, 241 Kan. 732, 742, 740 P.2d 577, 584 (1987); State v. Baldwin, 305 A.2d 555, 559 (Me.1973). See also 1 Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 2.7(b) (1986); Annotation, Necessity of Proving Venue or Territorial Jurisdiction of Criminal Offense Beyond Reasonable Doubt, 67 A.L.R.3d 988 (1975). In contrast, venue in Iowa is now a nonjurisdictional issue. State v. Allen, 293 N.W.2d 16, 18-19 (Iowa 1980). Venue deals with convenience and location of the trial rather than the power of the court to decide an issue on its merits. State v. Wardenburg, 261 Iowa 1395, 1400, 158 N.W.2d 147, 150 (1968). A defendant must secure a ruling by the trial court before trial or the venue issue is waived. Allen, 293 N.W.2d at 18. The State has the burden of proving venue by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 19-21. Iowa Code section 803.1(2) creates a permissive, or rebuttable, presumption of state jurisdiction. In State v. Winders, 359 N.W.2d 417, 419 (Iowa 1984), we stated: A permissive presumption is one that allows, but does not require, the jury to infer an elemental fact from proof of a basic one. Because the permissive presumption leaves the jury free to reject the inference, it does not affect the burden of proof, unless there is no rational way the jury can draw the inference. (Citations omitted.) An instruction that permits a permissive presumption or inference does not violate due process under Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), and Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 105 S.Ct. 1965, 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985). The interpretation of the instruction requires the court to determine what a reasonable juror could have understood the charge as meaning. Francis, 471 U.S. at 316, 105 S.Ct. at 1972, 85 L.Ed.2d at 354. The district court instructed the jury upon the statutory presumption. The court stated: The law of the State of Iowa presumes that if a body is found within this state, the death occurred within the state. You are therefore allowed, but not required, to conclude that the death of Jennifer Lewis occurred within the State of Iowa. The court also instructed the jury that the State must prove the offense was committed wholly or partly within the State of Iowa and that [a]n offense is committed partly within the State of Iowa if conduct which is an element of the offense occurs within Iowa. An offense may also be committed partly within the State of Iowa if a result which constitutes an element of the offense occurs in Iowa. In the marshalling instructions, the court required the State prove the offenses of willful injury, sexual abuse, and kidnapping were committed wholly or partly within the State of Iowa. Liggins challenged the court's statutory presumption instruction. He requested the instruction use the word infers rather than presumes to explain the presumption. Although granting Liggins' request would have improved the instruction, we do not think a reasonable jury could have understood the court's instruction as creating a mandatory presumption that shifts the burden of persuasion to Liggins. In a homicide, if the body is discovered and it is not known where the death occurred, the rebuttable presumption or inference is necessary. It is rational to infer from proof of the location of the body that the homicide was committed within the state in which the body was found. Although we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Iowa had territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Liggins on the murder charge, we do not find sufficient evidence on this issue to prosecute him on the other charges. Jennifer, her mother and stepfather, and Liggins were residents of Illinois. Jennifer was last seen in Illinois. There is no presumption or inference that the assault, sexual abuse, or kidnapping occurred in Iowa. The jury's finding that these offenses were committed wholly or partly within the State of Iowa is not supported by substantial evidence. The convictions on these charges must be reversed.