Opinion ID: 2095398
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Federal and State Constitutions

Text: In this case we address whether a New York criminal court lacked territorial jurisdiction, allegedly conferred under Criminal Procedure Law § 20.20, to prosecute defendant for three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree where the drugs and the defendant were located in California. To begin with, the conviction of defendant for constructive possession here violates article III, § 2 of the Federal Constitution which reads in part: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed ; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed (§ 2 [3] [emphasis supplied]). The conviction also violates the Sixth Amendment to the Federal Constitution which reads in part: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law . . . (emphasis supplied). In New York, the right to a jury trial guaranteed by article I, § 2 of the State Constitution encompasses the right to be tried in the county where the crime occurred ( People v Ribowsky, 77 NY2d 284, 291-292 [1991]; People v Moore, 46 NY2d 1, 6-7 [1978]; Matter of Murphy v Extraordinary Special & Trial Term of Supreme Ct., 294 NY 440, 458 [1945]; Mack v People, 82 NY 235 [1880]). To uphold this conviction is to violate that principle. It should be clear what the dissent is saying with respect to territorial jurisdiction and preservation. Because territorial jurisdiction goes to the authority of the court to try a defendant for the particular crimes in issue, no preservation is necessary ( People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295 [1976] [A defendant in a criminal case cannot waive, or even consent to, error that would affect the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings proscribed by law], citing Cancemi v People, 18 NY 128, 138 [1858]).