Personal Jurisdiction of A Government Or Sovereign Over the Defendant and the Defendant's Conduct

JurisdictionMaryland

IV. Personal jurisdiction of a government or sovereign over the defendant and the defendant's conduct

Personal jurisdiction addresses the power of a government or sovereign over that defendant and over that defendant's conduct. There may be an issue as to whether there was sufficient connection between the government or sovereign and the defendant's conduct. Personal jurisdiction is resolved under a territorial theory of jurisdiction, which is based on the situs or locus of the offense. In State v. Butler, 353 Md. 67 (1999), the Court of Appeals stated:

Territorial jurisdiction describes the concept that only when an offense is committed within the boundaries of the court's jurisdictional geographic territory, which generally is within the boundaries of the respective states, may the case be tried in that state. The roots of the territorial jurisdiction requirement lie in the Sixth Amendment[, which] requires that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a . . . trial by an impartial jury of the State . . . wherein the crime shall have been committed. . . .

Id. at 72-73; accord Trindle v. State, 326 Md. 25, 38 (1992).

A. Personal jurisdiction in state criminal cases

1. Territorial jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction in state courts is determined based on a territorial theory of jurisdiction, i.e., whether the situs or locus of the offense occurred in that state. Butler, 353 Md. at 72-73; State v. Adams, 406 Md. 240, 296 (2008); Khalifa v. State, 382 Md. 400, 421 (2004); Bowen v. State, 206 Md. 368, 375 (1955). See Breeding v. State, 220 Md. 193, 200 (1959) (Maryland cannot punish for crimes committed in other states).

2. Essential elements of offense and situs or locus of offense

Maryland adopts the common law rule, which requires that an "essential," "key," or "vital" element of the offense take place in Maryland in order to make Maryland the situs or locus of the offense. West v. State, 369 Md. 150, 158-59 (2002). In State v. Cain, 360 Md. 205 (2000), the Court of Appeals stated that, if all of the elements of an offense do not occur in a single state, the case must be tried in the state where the essential element of the offense was "committed." Id. at 213-14.

The Court stated that each offense has, for jurisdictional purposes, one key act or omission that must have taken place in the state where the prosecution is commenced. Id. at 214-15 (essential element of theft by deception is obtaining control of property); accord Pennington v. State, 308 Md. 727, 730 (1987); Waldrop v. State, 12 Md. App. 371, 377 (1971) (essential element for embezzlement is intent). See, e.g., Allen v. State, 171 Md. App. 544, 560-61 (2006) (although "taking" occurred out-of-state, an ongoing possession occurred in Maryland).

Affirmative act offenses

The situs or locus of an affirmative act offense is the place where the prohibited conduct takes place. McDonald v. State, 61 Md. App. 461, 468-70 (1985). For murder and manslaughter, in Stout v. State, 76 Md. 317 (1892), the Court of Appeals held that the situs or locus is where the death blow is inflicted and not where the victim dies. For example, if the defendant, while in State A, shoots the victim in State B, who flees to State C and dies, the death blow was inflicted in State B.

For rape, the essential or key element is vaginal intercourse, and for first degree sex offense, the essential or key element is the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT