Opinion ID: 853336
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Alkhalidi contends that Indiana did not have jurisdiction of his case because the State did not prove jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurisdiction is considered an element of the offense. Sundling v. State, 679 N.E.2d 988, 991 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). Indiana has jurisdiction if either the conduct that is an element of the offense or the result that is an element occurs in Indiana. Ind.Code § 35-41-1-1(b)(1) (1998); McKinney v. State, 553 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind.Ct.App. 1990), trans. denied. Jurisdiction must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Sundling, 679 N.E.2d at 991. Much of Alkhalidi's argument rests on Michigan law that would give Michigan jurisdiction. This argument is unpersuasive. Two states can each have concurrent criminal jurisdiction over a crime with the proper nexus to both. Cf. Archer v. State, 106 Ind. 426, 432, 7 N.E. 225, 228 (1886) (There is, as we understand the authorities, no real conflict of opinion as to the power of the Legislature to provide for punishment of a crime partly committed in one jurisdiction and partly in another, in either jurisdiction....); Kiser v. Woods, 60 Ind. 538 (1878) (prosecution for larceny allowed in Indiana where defendant obtains money and plans scheme in Ohio, but completes scheme in Indiana). Whether Michigan could also have tried Alkhalidi is irrelevant. The jury was instructed that it had to find jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt. There was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that either the conductthe robbery and/or shootingor the resultthe taking of property and/or deathoccurred in Indiana. Purdiman was last seen in St. Joseph County, Indiana. He had announced his intention to go with Alkhalidi west to Michigan City, Indiana, not north to Michigan. [1] He had a large amount of cash that might or might not have been in his possession after the contemplated casino visit. On May 3 or 4 Purdiman's car was seen outside Alkhalidi's home. No blood was found near Purdiman's body, suggesting that he was not killed where his body was found. The blood in Alkhalidi's car points to the car as the place where Purdiman was murdered. Many of Purdiman's personal effects (clothing, a cell phone, drivers license, and a dinner ticket) were found at Alkhalidi's residence. This evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Purdiman was killed in the course of a robbery that took place at least in part in Indiana. In addition, Alkhalidi was convicted of theft for exerting unauthorized control over Purdiman's license plate. This crime clearly occurred in Indiana because the police found Alkhalidi with the plate outside of his home in St. Joseph County. Where a defendant is charged with multiple crimes that are integrally related, jurisdiction over all the crimes is proper if some of them occurred in Indiana. Conrad v. State, 262 Ind. 446, 450-51, 317 N.E.2d 789, 791-92 (1974). In Conrad, this Court affirmed a conviction for kidnapping and manslaughter, pointing out that [t]here was substantial evidence presented from which the jury could find that the assault and abduction of the victim were integrally related to the victim's murder. Thus viewed, the assault and abduction provide an adequate jurisdictional base for appellant's conviction of murder in Wayne County, Indiana. Id. at 451, 317 N.E.2d at 792. As a result, Indiana had jurisdiction over the prosecution. The same reasoning applies here.