The Superior Court, Law Division may assert
jurisdiction over nonindictable offenses when they are
lesser included offenses of indictable offenses. State v. De
Luca, 108 N.J. 98 (1987) (court may preside over
simultaneous prosecutions for death by auto for driving
under the influence).
Dispositional rules governing incarceration of
juveniles by Family Part have no effect on a juvenile who
is waived to adult court. State in the Interest of A.B., 109
N.J. 195 (1988); State v. Scott, 141 N.J. 457 (1995).
B. Appellate Division
The Appellate Division of Superior Court is the
intermediate appellate court which hears criminal
appeals of final judgments from the Law Division. R. 2:2-
- In certain cases, the Appellate Division may grant leave
to appeal from an interlocutory order of a trial court. R.
2:2-4. For example, a juvenile waiver order is an
interlocutory order which may be appealed only by leave
granted under R. 2:2-4. State in the Interest of R.L., 202
N.J. Super, 410 (App. Div. 1985); see also State in the
Interest of A.L., 271 N.J. Super. 192 (App. Div. 1994).
Normally, the filing of an appeal deprives the trial
court of jurisdiction. R. 2:9-1; but see R. 2:9-4 (a trial
judge may grant bail pending appeal), R. 3:21-10(d) (a
trial court may reconsider and modify a sentence
notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal) and R. 1:13-
1 (correction of clerical mistakes).
The Appellate Division also hears appeals from
administrative agencies. R. 2:2-3(a)(2). If an applicant
rejected by the office of the Public Defender for
representation seeks to challenge that rejection, he
should file an appeal with the Appellate Division. State
v. Nilsen, 214 N.J. Super. 23 (App. Div. 1986); see also
State v. Douglas, 322 N.J. Super. 156, 164-165 (App.
Div. 1999).
IV. TERRITORIAL APPLICABILITY OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 establishes the territorial jurisdic-
tion of the criminal law. The Code makes clear that a
person may be convicted under the laws of New Jersey
where his conduct or conduct of another for which he is
legally accountable, which is an element of the offense, or
the result of such conduct, occurs within the State.
N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(1)-(6).
N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(f) provides that, notwithstanding
the jurisdiction of the State, the court may dismiss, hold
in abeyance for up to six months or place on the inactive
list, any criminal prosecution under the laws of the State
“where it appears that such action is in the interests of
justice because the defendant is being prosecuted for an
offense based on the same conduct in another jurisdiction
and this State’s interest will be adequately served by a
prosecution in the other jurisdiction.” See State v. Ellis,
280 N.J. Super. 533, 549-552 (App. Div. 1995).N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(e) defines “this State” for purpose of
the Code as including the land, water and air spaces above
such land and water with respect to which the State has
legislative jurisdiction. It also includes any territory
made subject to the criminal jurisdiction of this State by
interstate compacts. See State v. Holden, 46 N.J. 361
(1966).With respect to homicides, the Code provides that
either the death of a victim or the bodily impact causing
death constitutes a result within the meaning of the
Code, and if the body of a victim is found within the State
it may be inferred that such result occurred within the
State. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(d); 2C:1-13e; State v. Dirienzo,
53 N.J. 360, 376 (1969). For example, in State v. Farlow,
176 N.J. Super. 548 (App. Div. 1980), certif. denied 87
N.J. 320 (1981), defendant shot and wounded the
victim in Philadelphia. The victim died in Camden
County, New Jersey. The court held that defendant
could be prosecuted in the county where the victim died.
See also State v. Reldan, 166 N.J. Super. 562 (Law Div.
1979), aff’d 185 N.J. Super. 495 (App. Div. 1982), certif.
denied 91 N.J. 543 (1982).In State v. Schmidt, 213 N.J. Super 576 (App. Div.
1986), rev’d on o.g., 110 N.J. 258, the Appellate Division
held that a defendant, who was outside New Jersey at the
time his co-defendant was arrested in New Jersey for
possession of cocaine in the trunk of his automobile was,
as a co-conspirator, responsible for conduct of the co-
defendant who actually possessed cocaine in New Jersey.
In State v. Schumann, 218 N.J. Super. 501 (App. Div.
1987), modified and remanded, 111 N.J. 470 (1988), the
Appellate Division reserved defendant’s conviction for
endangering the welfare of a child and remanded for an
entry of a judgement of acquittal. The offense occurred
at Sandy Hook. The court held that jurisdiction was an
element of the offense, and reversed defendant’s
conviction because the State did not prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that the offense occurred in an area
where the State had concurrent jurisdiction with the
federal government. The Supreme Court held that the