determination of the areas of Sandy Hook that are subject
to concurrent state-federal jurisdiction is a legal question
to be decided by the court. The jury should then
determine beyond a reasonable doubt whether the
offense occurred within that area. The court remanded
the case to the Law Division for a determination of the
area subject to the jurisdiction of the State. See also State
v. Ingram, 226 N.J. Super. 680 (Law Div. 1988) (State
failed to produce facts establishing it had territorial
jurisdiction over United States Army Corps of Engineers
site on which defendant allegedly unlawfully abandoned
or disposed of hazardous waste).
Where there is continuing course of conduct both
within and outside New Jersey, New Jersey courts will
have jurisdiction where the conduct or result occurring in
New Jersey constitutes an element of the offense. 2C:1-
3a(1). For example, in State v. Sanders, 230 N.J. Super.
233 (App. Div. 1989), the defendant was found to have
endangered the welfare of a child in New Jersey when she
admitted leaving the state with the express purpose of
abandoning her infant son in Philadelphia. The court
held that taking a substantial step towards abandoning
the child constituted an attempt under 2C:5-1a(3)
which itself is a completed crime conferring jurisdiction
under 2C:1-3a(1). Similarly, a defendant’s intention to
distribute a controlled dangerous substance out of state
does not raise a jurisdictional issue as the crime is
complete in this state. See State v. Meltzer, 239 N.J. Super.
110, 114 (Law Div. 1989); see also State v. Jackson, 289
N.J. Super. 43, 50 (App. Div. 1996), certif. denied 148
N.J. 462 (1997)(possession of a weapon for an unlawful
purpose charge was not subject to jurisdictional attack
notwithstanding the fact that defendant intended to use
the weapon to commit a crime outside of New Jersey).
Where it is disputed whether the crime was
completed in New Jersey, a jury instruction must explain
which element occurred where and for what purpose.
State v. Bragg, 295 N.J. Super. 459 (App. Div. 1996).
Establishing jurisdiction over a particular criminal act is
an element of the offense, 2c:1-13a, 2C:1-14h. Thus,
the issue of what act took place where is for the jury, and
the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that acts
constituting an offense took place in New Jersey. State v.
Schumann, supra; State v. Bragg, supra.
Where the victim was threatened at gunpoint in a
federal post office and her purse was taken, the State had
jurisdiction over the armed robbery where the purpose
was to get the victim’s keys and steal her car. State v.
Jackson, supra, applying 2C:1-3a(2).
In State v. Streater, 233 N.J. Super. 537, 543-544
(App. Div.), certif. denied, 117 N.J. 667 (1989), the court
found that 2C:1-3a(4) conferred jurisdiction on New
Jersey where defendant engaged in substantial conduct in
New Jersey in preparation for theft by deception in
Connecticut.V. LACK OF JURISDICTION (See also,
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, this Digest)
A jurisdictional defense may be noticed at any time
during the pendency of the proceedings except at trial.
R.. 3:10-4.The statute of limitations in criminal matters is
jurisdictional and nonwaivable. State v. Stillwell, 175
N.J. Super. 244, 252 (App. Div. 1980); State v. Short,
131 N.J. 47, 55 (1993). In State v. Stern, 197 N.J. Super.
49 (App. Div. 1984), the Appellate Division rejected
defendant’s jurisdictional contention, on appeal from the
Law Division following a trial de novo, that the municipal
court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, because it
was barred by the statute of limitations for disorderly
persons offenses. The court relied upon N.J.S.A. 2C:1-
6(d) which permits the downgrading at any time, if the
original indictable offense was filed within the time
applicable to that offense. 197 N.J. Super. at 53.In State v. Bernstein, 189 N.J. Super. 212 (App. Div.
1983), the Appellate Division found that the municipal
court did not have jurisdiction to convict defendant of a
fourth degree theft offense and reversed defendant’s
conviction which was entered by the Law Division
following a trial de novo. R. 3:23-8(d) does not preclude
a dismissal for want of jurisdiction by the Appellate
Division. 189 N.J. Super. at 217; See R. 3:10-4; See R.
1:13-4 (authorizes transfer from a court lacking subject
matter jurisdiction to any court having such
jurisdiction).