Opinion ID: 1037569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Locus of the Crime

Text: Even that does not end the analysis, however, as we must determine whether the jury’s general verdict in this case encompassed a finding that Davis’s crime occurred at the MDC. Such a finding is necessary because, as noted above, the locus of the crime is a factual element of the offense that must be determined by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See Hernandez-Fundora, 58 F.3d at 811. Although we have not encountered this precise question before, we have had occasion to address whether and when a court can infer from a general verdict that the jury 22 made certain subsidiary factual findings. Specifically, in cases before and after Apprendi, we have held that a court may look at the record, including the indictment, the evidence at trial, the jury charge, summations, and other relevant matter, to determine what the jury “necessarily decided” in returning a general verdict. United States v. Zillgitt, 286 F.3d 128, 138 (2d Cir. 2002); accord United States v. Barnes, 158 F.3d 662, 668 (2d Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Skelly, 442 F.3d 94, 99 (2d Cir. 2006) (rejecting the argument that it was “impossible to determine which of two competing theories formed the basis for conviction” of securities fraud charges in light of the jury instructions, evidence presented at trial, and government’s summation); cf. United States v. Carbullido, 307 F.3d 957, 961 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that to interpret a general verdict for purposes of collateral estoppel review in a criminal case, an appellate court “examine[s] the record of a prior proceeding, taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude[s] whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Looking at those sources here, there is no doubt whatsoever that the jury found that Davis’s assault took place at the MDC. Given the district court’s charge, there is no way the jury could have convicted Davis, as it did, without finding that assault “occurred in a federal prison on federal land.” And there was no dispute at trial that Davis was incarcerated at the MDC on the date in question and that all relevant events — captured on videotape of the prison — took place there. It follows that the jury necessarily found that the assault occurred at the MDC. That finding, coupled with this Court’s taking of judicial notice that 23 the MDC is within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, is sufficient to affirm Davis’s conviction.