Court Opinion

ID: 9727098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:19:45.35082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:33.544969
License: Public Domain

HOFFMAN, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur with the majority opinion. I agree that territorial jurisdiction is an element that must be proven by the State when a dispute arises as to whether the trial court has subject-matter jurisdiction to try the case.1 The defendant did properly preserve this issue by tendering an instruction to the trial court,
Ind.Trial Rule 51(C);
State Farm v. Shuman, Admx. (1977), 175 Ind.App. 186, 370 N.E.2d 941 (action of trial court in refusing a properly tendered instruction automatically gives the tendering party an exception to the ruling),
although, subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time. Matter of Adoption of H.S. (1985), Ind.App., 483 N.E.2d 777.
I note that territorial jurisdiction was also discussed in Lane v. State (1980), Fla., 388 So.2d 1022. The Lane court held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is a factual determination which is within the province of the jury to resolve under appropriate instructions.2 See also: Keen v. State (1987), Fla., 504 So.2d 396. The Lane court further stated that although a minority view holds that territorial jurisdiction must only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it agrees with the weight of authority that territorial jurisdiction must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lane, supra;

Annot., 67 A.L.R.3d 988 (1975).
However, I cannot agree with the majority that territorial jurisdiction is an element of the offense. As said by the majority, Indiana statutes do not define jurisdiction as an element of the offense. Furthermore, jurisdiction does not go to defendant’s guilt or innocence. See: Sizemore and Sandlin v. State (1979), 272 Ind. 26, 395 N.E.2d 783, 787 (although a venue case, the court’s rationale is applicable to this case). The court in State v. Baldwin (1973), Me., 305 A.2d 555 summed up the issue:
“Venue is not an element of a crime.... A fortiori jurisdiction is not an element of a crime.” (Citations omitted.)
In conclusion, if the jury finds that the trial court lacks territorial jurisdiction, the defendant may be indicted and tried in a court which maintains territorial jurisdiction. As the court in Baldwin, supra, stated:
“Nevertheless we take it as true that not only an acquittal but also a conviction ‘before a court having no jurisdiction is, of course, like all proceedings in the case, absolutely void, and therefore no bar to subsequent indictment and trial in a court which has jurisdiction of the offense.’ ” (Citations omitted.)
Defendant’s conviction should be reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial.

. Since territorial jurisdiction is often evident, it would be needless to require the State to prove territorial jurisdiction in every case.

. If the evidence reveals beyond a reasonable doubt that the court properly maintains territorial jurisdiction, a special instruction on territorial jurisdiction need not be given to the jury. See: Johnson v. State (1985), Fla. 465 So.2d 499 (when all the physical and circumstantial evidence clearly indicated that all elements of the offense occurred in Florida with the only conflicting evidence being appellant’s bare allegation that the acts took place outside the state, it was not necessary to give the jury a special instruction on territorial jurisdiction).