Court Opinion

ID: 9572071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:38:05.937435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:27.178115
License: Public Domain

STILWELL, J.,
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I agree with the analysis and conclusions reached by both the majority opinion and Judge Anderson’s dissent on the issues of basic subject matter and personal jurisdiction. However, because I am not convinced that extraterritorial jurisdiction is equivalent to subject matter jurisdiction, I respectfully dissent.
The fundamental issue is whether the defense that the State exceeded its territorial jurisdiction should have been raised to and ruled on by the trial court. Because it clearly was not, the only way this court can address it is to equate it to subject matter jurisdiction. This is a novel issue in South Carolina, and a review of the sparse case law from our state and the leading cases from other states convinces me it is not subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, I believe this issue is not preserved and should not be addressed for the first time on appeal. See State v. Hicks, 330 S.C. 207, 216, 499 S.E.2d 209, 214 (1998) (issue must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court to be preserved for appellate review); Hendrix v. Eastern Dist., 320 S.C. 218, 219, 464 S.E.2d 112, 113 (1995) (unpreserved issue should not be addressed on appeal).
*548The limited number of cases from our supreme court shed no light on the question of whether extraterritorial or, as it is sometimes called “territorial,” jurisdiction is equivalent to subject matter jurisdiction. However, it is instructive to note that in the two leading South Carolina cases on the subject, State v. Morrow, 40 S.C. 221, 230, 18 S.E. 853, 856 (1893) and State v. Farne, 190 S.C. 75, 82, 1 S.E.2d 912, 915 (1939), no error preservation issues were present because objections to the court’s jurisdiction were appropriately made in the trial court, fully argued, and ruled on. Therefore, our supreme court did not need to specify whether the issue was subject matter or some other type of jurisdiction. It was referred to simply as a question of “jurisdiction.”
The same holds true for the cases from other jurisdictions cited in the majority opinion. In Re Vasquez, 428 Mass. 842, 705 N.E.2d 606 (1999), is a case heavily relied on by the majority for the proposition that the issue involved is not personal jurisdiction. I do not agree, however, with the inference drawn therefrom that because it is not personal jurisdiction, it must be subject matter jurisdiction. There is no such holding in Vasquez. Indeed, the court specifically stated it was addressing solely the question of whether Vasquez’ arrest pursuant to the Massachusetts Governor’s Warrant was appropriate under the laws of Massachusetts. The court noted Vasquez’ argument, which the court viewed as a claim the State of Oregon had no legislative jurisdiction to criminalize acts occurring outside Oregon’s boundaries, could be made in the Oregon courts, and if he is dissatisfied with the determination made by the Oregon courts “and if he has properly preserved it there, he may petition the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.” Id. at 610 (emphasis added).
Virtually all, if not all, of the other cases ruling on the subject of territorial jurisdiction did so after a hearing on the issue or a trial on the merits, and the ultimate conclusion turns on the evidence, or lack thereof, of the defendant’s intent that the act have a detrimental effect in the state conducting the prosecution. The conclusion reached by the majority that South Carolina cannot exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over Dudley hinges on its finding that there is no evidence Dudley intended for her act to create a detrimental *549effect within South Carolina. This is the identical result reached by a divided court in Michigan in People v. Blume, 443 Mich. 476, 505 N.W.2d 843 (1993). The difference in this case and'the Blume case, however, is that lack of territorial jurisdiction was raised to and ruled on by the trial court in the Blume ease and was a proper subject for appeal. 505 N.W.2d at 845, 849 n. 19.
Subject matter jurisdiction is generally determined as a matter of law, requiring little if any evidence, particularly evidence of the intent of the accused. I frankly do not know whether extraterritorial jurisdiction is a part of personal jurisdiction, or is a third kind of jurisdiction not yet clearly articulated as such by the courts of South Carolina. I am nevertheless convinced it is an issue that must be raised to and ruled on by the trial court, as well as properly briefed to this court to warrant our addressing it. Because Dudley did neither, I would affirm her conviction.