State v. Dudley

12 Citing cases

  1. State v. Crocker

    366 S.C. 394 (S.C. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 21 times
    Noting the lack of an overt act requirement for criminal conspiracy

    "The circuit court has original jurisdiction in all criminal matters except those where an inferior court is given exclusive jurisdiction." State v.Dudley, 364 S.C. 578, 582, 614 S.E.2d 623, 625 (2005); S.C. Const. art. V, § 11 (Supp. 2004).

  2. In re Teagan K.-O.

    335 Conn. 745 (Conn. 2020)   Cited 19 times
    Allowing immediate appeal from interlocutory order in family matters due to importance of right of family to remain together without interference of state

    See 1 Restatement (Second), supra, c. 2, introductory note, p. 28. But see State v. Dudley , 364 S.C. 578, 582, 614 S.E.2d 623 (2005) ("Although territorial jurisdiction is not a component of subject matter jurisdiction, we hold that it is a fundamental issue that may be raised by a party or by a court at any point in the proceeding. ... The exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction implicates the state's sovereignty, a question so elemental that we hold it cannot be waived by conduct or by consent." (Citation omitted; footnote omitted.)).

  3. State v. Rimmer

    877 N.W.2d 652 (Iowa 2016)   Cited 15 times
    Holding Iowa courts had jurisdiction over defendants charged with insurance fraud who called Wisconsin insurer's employee in Iowa to authorize payment on false claims from the insurer's Wisconsin bank account, even though defendants did not know the employee in Iowa

    The defendants rely on several criminal cases that declined to exercise territorial jurisdiction when the nonresident defendant spoke by phone with a person in the forum state. Duncan v. Super. Ct., No. D055977, 2010 WL 740272, at *9–12 (Cal.Ct.App. Mar. 4, 2010) (holding California lacked territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Arizona resident who telephoned California resident to arrange sex crimes in Phoenix); State v. Palermo, 224 Kan. 275, 579 P.2d 718, 719–20 (1978) (holding Kansas lacked jurisdiction to prosecute drug dealer who refused to enter Kansas but agreed to sell drugs in Missouri to buyers from Kansas without knowledge the drugs would be resold in Kansas); State v. Dudley, 364 S.C. 578, 614 S.E.2d 623, 625–26 (2005) (holding South Carolina lacked jurisdiction to prosecute a Georgia resident who received phone calls from informant in South Carolina to arrange drug deal in Georgia). These cases noted the lack of proof the defendant intended to produce a “detrimental effect” within the forum state.

  4. State v. Tate

    Appellate Case No. 2013-001562 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2016)

    We find no merit to Tate's argument, raised for the first time in his Reply Brief, that the trial court's exercise of territorial jurisdiction was improper because the alleged criminal activity was committed in Georgia. See State v. Dudley, 364 S.C. 578, 582, 614 S.E.2d 623, 625-26 (2005) ("Although territorial jurisdiction is not a component of subject matter jurisdiction, we hold that it is a fundamental issue that may be raised by a party or by a court at any point in the proceeding."); id. at 582, 614 S.E.2d at 626 ("While a defendant need not be physically present in the State in order to commit a criminal offense here, the State's extraterritorial jurisdiction extends only to those who have performed acts 'intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within' our boundaries.

  5. State v. Tate

    2016-UP-291 (S.C. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2016)

    We find no merit to Tate's argument, raised for the first time in his Reply Brief, that the trial court's exercise of territorial jurisdiction was improper because the alleged criminal activity was committed in Georgia. See State v. Dudley, 364 S.C. 578, 582, 614 S.E.2d 623, 625-26 (2005) ("Although territorial jurisdiction is not a component of subject matter jurisdiction, we hold that it is a fundamental issue that may be raised by a party or by a court at any point in the proceeding."); id. at 582, 614 S.E.2d at 626 ("While a defendant need not be physically present in the State in order to commit a criminal offense here, the State's extraterritorial jurisdiction extends only to those who have performed acts 'intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within' our boundaries." (quoting Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 285 (1911))). We find the State presented overwhelming evidence that Tate committed acts intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within South Carolina.

  6. Carvajal v. Artus

    633 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2011)   Cited 339 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state prisoner had not given state courts a fair opportunity to consider his federal claim when he had "relied on state court decisions interpreting state statutory law," and had not "alert[ed] the state courts that his claim was federal in nature"

    Other states have done likewise. See, e.g., Betts, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 138, 103 P.3d at 887 (upholding jurisdiction over crime committed in another state when intent to commit crime formed in prosecuting state); see also Connecticut v. Cardwell, 246 Conn. 721, 718 A.2d 954, 963 (1998) (observing "that the legislature has the authority to enact criminal statutes that have an extraterritorial effect"); but cf. State v. Dudley, 364 S.C. 578, 614 S.E.2d 623, 626 (2005); People v. Blume, 443 Mich. 476, 505 N.W.2d 843, 844 (1993) (holding "Michigan may exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over acts committed outside Michigan when the acts are intended to and do have a detrimental effect within the state." (emphasis added)).

  7. Bayly v. State

    397 S.C. 290 (S.C. 2012)   Cited 7 times
    Stating "section 22-3-540 provides for magistrate courts to have exclusive jurisdiction of all criminal cases in which punishment does not exceed a fine of $100 or imprisonment for thirty days and section 22-3-550 increases the amount of the maximum fine to $500"

    Specifically, the subject matter jurisdiction challenge was based on an alleged insufficiency in the indictment, not the timeliness of the challenge to the insufficiency in the indictment. Justice Pleicones acknowledged this fact when he authored the opinion in State v. Dudley, 364 S.C. 578, 614 S.E.2d 623 (2005), wherein he relied almost exclusively on Gentry to find that extraterritorial jurisdiction is not a component of subject matter jurisdiction. Indisputably, Gentry is the seminal case in our jurisprudence that deals in concert with subject matter jurisdiction and the sufficiency of an indictment.

  8. State v. Boswell

    391 S.C. 592 (S.C. 2011)   Cited 7 times
    Finding Boswell's arrest was unlawful because Lexington County officers had no specific statutory authorization and there was no valid multi-jurisdictional agreement between Lexington County and Calhoun County

    " Given that territorial jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction are separate and distinct concepts, there was some confusion amongst counsel and the judge as to the use of the term "jurisdiction." See Smith v. Commonwealth, 56 Va.App. 351, 693 S.E.2d 765, 769 (2010) (parsing the term "jurisdiction" and recognizing that subject matter jurisdiction is the authority granted through the constitution or statute to adjudicate a class of cases or controversies and that territorial jurisdiction is the authority over persons, things or occurrences located in a defined geographical area); seealso State v. Dudley, 364 S.C. 578, 614 S.E.2d 623 (2005) (recognizing that the State's extra-territorial jurisdiction is not a component of subject matter jurisdiction). Despite the specific terminology error, the judge understood that Boswell's counsel was moving to suppress the confessions as the fruit of an unlawful arrest.

  9. McClain v. State

    501 P.3d 1009 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times
    Granting relief where Indian country jurisdictional claim based on McGirt was raised for the first time in a defense motion filed after briefing was completed on direct appeal

    See also State v. Randle , 2002 WI App 116, ¶ 14, 252 Wis. 2d 743, 751, 647 N.W.2d 324, 329 (concluding territorial jurisdiction subject to waiver in some instances); Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 229, 661 S.E.2d 415, 427 (2008) (territorial jurisdiction is waived if not properly and timely raised); In re Teagan K.-O ., 335 Conn. 745, 765 n. 22, 242 A.3d 59, 73 n. 22 (2020) (territorial jurisdiction may be subject to waiver). But see State v. Dudley , 364 S.C. 578, 582, 614 S.E.2d 623, 625-26 (2005) ("Although territorial jurisdiction is not a component of subject matter jurisdiction, we hold that it is a fundamental issue that may be raised by a party or by a court at any point in the proceeding. The exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction implicates the state's sovereignty, a question so elemental that we hold it cannot be waived by conduct or by consent.

  10. Bosse v. State

    484 P.3d 286 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting concurrent jurisdiction argument

    See also State v. Randle , 2002 WI App 116, ¶ 14, 252 Wis. 2d 743, 751, 647 N.W.2d 324, 329 (concluding territorial jurisdiction subject to waiver in some instances); Porter v. Commonwealth, 276 Va. 203, 229, 661 S.E.2d 415, 427 (Va.2008) (territorial jurisdiction is waived if not properly and timely raised); In re Teagan K.-O ., 335 Conn. 745, 765 n. 22, 242 A.3d 59, 73 n. 22 (Conn.2020) (territorial jurisdiction may be subject to waiver). But see State v. Dudley , 364 S.C. 578, 582, 614 S.E.2d 623, 625-26 (2005) ("Although territorial jurisdiction is not a component of subject matter jurisdiction, we hold that it is a fundamental issue that may be raised by a party or by a court at any point in the proceeding.... The exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction implicates the state's sovereignty, a question so elemental that we hold it cannot be waived by conduct or by consent."