Criminal Defense Lawyers

New Jersey Section 2C:20-34 – Situs of offense, determination.

New Jersey’s theft laws can be tricky to navigate. Section 2C:20-34 deals with where a theft offense is considered to have taken place. This is important for determining which county has jurisdiction to prosecute a theft crime. Let’s break down the key points of this law.

What the Law Says

Section 2C:20-34 states that a theft offense is considered to have been committed in any county where the offender:

• Took, obtained, or withheld property from the victim
• Possessed, received, retained, or disposed of the property
• Passed through with the property in their vehicle, vessel, or airplane

So for example, if someone steals a car in Essex County and drives it down to Cape May County, both counties could claim jurisdiction over the theft crime under this statute. The law tries to give flexibility to prosecute theft offenses across multiple jurisdictions.

Court Precedent

There have been some key court cases that helped define the scope of this law:

• State v. Streater – Ruled that jurisdiction is established if any element of the theft offense took place there, even briefly.
• State v. James – Upheld jurisdiction when stolen goods were brought through a county while being transported.
• State v. Malik – Limited jurisdiction for mere possession to counties where other elements of the theft took place.

So the courts have generally interpreted this statute broadly, but not limitlessly.

Pros and Cons

The flexibility of Section 2C:20-34 has some notable pros and cons:

Pros

• Allows prosecutors to pursue charges where witnesses and evidence are most readily available.
• Prevents theft offenses from slipping through jurisdictional cracks.
• Broad jurisdiction may act as a deterrent against transporting stolen goods.

Cons

• Could allow prosecutors to “shop” for the jurisdiction perceived as most favorable.
• May discourage plea bargains if defendants face charges in multiple counties.
• Police resources can be wasted coordinating across jurisdictions.

Overall, the law tries to balance flexibility for prosecution against potential abuse. But reasonable limits have been set by the courts.

Practical Implications

This statute has some notable practical implications for prosecutors and defendants:

• Prosecutors can pursue charges in any county with a factual connection to the theft.
• Defendants may need to defend against charges in multiple jurisdictions.
• Law enforcement may need to coordinate investigations and share evidence between counties.
• There is greater potential for civil asset forfeiture proceedings in multiple jurisdictions.

So Section 2C:20-34 significantly expands the venues where a theft offense can be prosecuted. This provides prosecutors with options but creates complexity for defendants.

Possible Defenses

Given the broad jurisdiction under Section 2C:20-34, what defenses might a theft defendant raise? Some options include:

• Contesting the factual basis for jurisdiction in a particular county.
• Claiming improper venue and seeking transfer or dismissal of charges.
• Alleging prosecutorial misconduct or “shopping” for a favorable jurisdiction.
• Asserting that extradition between counties violates constitutional rights.
• Arguing that jurisdiction in multiple counties violates double jeopardy protections.

Defense strategies may aim to narrow or consolidate charges to a single favorable jurisdiction. Procedural protections could also be invoked. But given court precedent, jurisdictional challenges will likely face an uphill battle in most theft cases.

The Bottom Line

Section 2C:20-34 provides extensive flexibility to prosecute theft crimes across county lines. This serves law enforcement purposes but creates complexity for defendants. The courts have applied common sense limits, but the law remains very broad. For anyone facing theft charges in New Jersey, understanding the unique jurisdictional issues will be key.

With some thoughtful case strategy, defense counsel may find ways to narrow or transfer charges. But prosecutors hold most of the cards under this statute. The best defense will likely be vigilant investigation to undermine the factual basis for jurisdiction. While not perfect, Section 2C:20-34 reflects a legislative choice that theft offenses warrant expanded jurisdictional reach.