Senate Bill S4254

                                 BILL NUMBER:  S4254

 TITLE OF BILL :

An act to amend the criminal procedure law, in relation to
geographical jurisdiction of offenses


This is one in a series of measures being introduced at the request of
the Chief Administrative Judge upon the recommendation of her Advisory
Committee on Criminal Law and Procedure.

This measure would amend the Criminal Procedure Law to establish a
basis for a county to have jurisdiction over criminal conduct where,
although New York State has jurisdiction over the conduct, no county
can establish jurisdiction under current law.

The Court of Appeals recently affirmed the dismissal of a perjury
prosecution stemming from an out-of state deposition where the
defendant was questioned by the New York State Attorney General's
office in connection with an ongoing New York State antitrust
investigation (see People v Zimmerman, 9 NY3d 421  2007 ). The Court
held that while New York State had jurisdiction to prosecute the
alleged perjury, it could find no basis for the defendant to be
prosecuted in New York County or in any other county in the state.
The Court acknowledged the principle that once the State has
              

jurisdiction to prosecute a case, it can "as a general rule, assign
the trial of that case to any county it chooses" (9 NY3d at 428-429).
But, for a county to prosecute, the Legislature must provide a
specific jurisdictional basis. Under the current legislative scheme
there is simply no provision to allow any county to have jurisdiction
over a case which only impacts the State as a whole. As explicitly
stated by the Court, the current statute leaves a gap that the Court
is not permitted to fill. Instead, the Court suggested that it is up
to the Legislature to fill the gap (see id at 430).

In order to provide a basis for jurisdiction in an appropriate county
under the situation faced by the prosecution in Zimmerman, this
measure would add a new paragraph (f) to CPL 20.40(2), to allow a
county to exercise jurisdiction if there is a "logical nexus" between
the criminal conduct and the county. By the statute's express terms,
it would only operate in cases where no other basis for a county to
exercise jurisdiction can be established. Therefore, it does not
extend the current reach of the remaining provisions of CPL 20.40(2),
and is limited solely to closing the legislative "gap" recognized by
the Court of Appeals in Zimmerman.

This measure, which would have no fiscal impact on the State, would
take effect on the first day of November next succeeding the date on
which it shall have become a law and apply only to offenses where the
conduct constituting the offense occurred on or after such date.

 2008 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY :

None. New proposal.