People v. Hillman

• Decision Date: 22 November 1927
• Citation: 159 N.E. 400,246 N.Y. 467
• Parties: PEOPLE v. HILLMAN et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

246 N.Y. 467

159 N.E. 400

PEOPLE

v.HILLMAN et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Nov. 22, 1927.

Theodore Hillman and another were convicted of robbery in the first degree, and they appeal. From an order of the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirming the convictions (219 App. Div. 792, 220 N. Y. S. 899), they appeal.

Reversed, and indictment dismissed.Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Henry Hirschberg, of Newburgh, for appellants.

Elmer H. Lemon, Dist. Atty., of Newburgh, for the People.

LEHMAN, J.

The defendants have been indicted by the grand jury of the county of Orange upon a charge of robbery in the first degree committed upon a public highway in the town of Highlands in the county of Orange. They have been convicted of the crime charged after trial in the County Court of Orange county. It is not disputed that the people presented testimony, not contradicted by any evidence produced on behalf of the defendants, which shows that the defendants did commit a robbery as charged, upon a highway within the geographicallimits of the town of Highlands and of the county of Orange. If the state of New York had legislative jurisdiction over the place where the evidence shows that the crime was committed, and might confer upon the County Court jurisdiction to try a defendant charged with crime at that point, the conviction must be affirmed. The defendants attack the judgments of conviction upon the contention that the place where, according to the uncontradicted testimony, the crime was committed, lies within the limits of the West Point Military Reservation, where the government of the United States exercises exclusive political dominion, and where the County Court, created by and acting under authority of the state of New York, may exercise no criminal jurisdiction.

The evidence shows that the complaining witness and the defendants drove in an automobile from the village of Highland Falls along a state highway. They ascended a hill until they came to a signpost at a crossroad. They proceeded a short distance from the signpost along the state highway known as the Storm King highway in a northerly direction. The robbery occurred at a point on that highway where the land on both sides is part of the West Point Military Reservation. A highway existed there for at least 40 years; indeed, for as long a time as any of the witnesses, residents of the neighborhood, can remember. The evidence produced at the trial conclusively shows that the robbery occurred on a state highway which passes through a military reservation of the United States. There is little, if any, evidence to show whether the highway is part of the reservation or on land excepted from it.

Article I, § 8, of the Constitution of the United States, provides that--

‘The Congress shall have power * * * to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.’

The state of New York can confer no jurisdiction upon its courts where the Constitution of the United States gives Congress exclusive authority. If the crime in fact occurred at a place purchased ‘by the consent of the Legislature’ of the state of New York and used as the West Point Military Reservation, then trial must be held according to the laws made by the United States Congress and before a tribunal selected by it.

[1][2] The trial court in this case submitted to the jury the question of whether the crime occurred at a point within the jurisdiction of the County Court of Orange county. The jury found it did. The people claim upon this appeal that this finding, if made on competent evidence, destroys all basis for the contention of the defendants that the County Court was without jurisdiction. The County Court can exercise no jurisdiction not conferred upon it by the state. In terms, the state has conferred upon the court jurisdiction to pass upon charges of crime alleged to have been committed within the territorial limits of Orange county. The courts of the state of New York, deriving their authority from the Constitution or the Legislature of the state, are the creatures of the state. Where exclusive political dominion is lodged in another sovereign, the state can confer no authority upon its courts, and its courts can exercise no authority which the state does not possess. No finding made at the trial can itself be the source of jurisdiction of the court or result in extension of jurisdiction beyond the limits of the territory where the state is sovereign.

Where the state confers upon its courts jurisdiction to try a charge, contained in an indictment or information, that a crime has been committed within the territorial limits of its sovereignty or within some subdivision thereof, an issuable question of fact which the court has jurisdiction to try may arise as to whether the crime was committed as charged at a place within such territorial limits. The determination of the court of an issuable question of fact which the court has jurisdiction to try may form the basis for a conclusion that the court has jurisdiction to render judgment. Where there is a dispute as to the place where a crime was committed, a question of fact may be presented upon which the jury must pass. State v. Rose (N. J. Sup.) 136 A. 295;Oakes v. State, 135 Ark. 221, 205 S. W. 305;United States v. Lewis (C. C.) 111 F. 630. Even where there is no dispute as to the place where the crime was committed, a question of fact, which the court has jurisdiction to determine, may arise as to whether the boundaries of a state or subdivision of a state are on one side or the other of that place. United States v. Jackalow, 1 Black. (66 U. S.) 484, 17 L. Ed. 225;State v. Malone, 134 La. 779, 64 So. 711;Mendiola v. State, 18 Tex. App. 462; Matter of Newton, 16 C. B. 97.

[3] Doubtless where the sovereign power which creates the courts and confers jurisdiction upon them may punish crime committed on either side of a disputed boundary, it may confer upon any of its courts jurisdiction to determine a disputed question of fact as to where the boundary is located and may make appropriate finding upon such question the basis of a conclusion of jurisdiction in the court to render a judgment of conviction. The right of a state to confer upon its courts jurisdiction to determine as a question of fact the location of a disputed boundary of the state itself, when the jurisdiction of the court is challenged upon the ground that the political dominion of the state and the jurisdiction of its courts does not extend beyond the true boundaries of the state, is not so clear. If a determination of the location of the boundary between two sovereignties can be arrived at only by weighing conflicting evidence or conflicting inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, crime committed near the disputed boundary may go unwhipped of justice unless some tribunal is empowered by each state to take or refuse jurisdiction in accordance with the finding of fact it may make as to the location of the boundaries of the state. Accordingly, it has been held that the location of a boundary even of the sovereign state itself may present a question of fact which the courts of the state have jurisdiction to determine upon the evidence presented at the trial of an accused. State v. Barrington, 141 N. C. 820, 53 S. E. 663;State v. Burton, 106 La. 732, 31 So. 291. We are not now called upon to decide whether in similar circumstances we would reach a like conclusion. These cases hold only that the location of a boundary line may, under some circumstances, present a question of fact, but the construction of the description of a boundary line presents a question of law. In the case now under consideration, it does not appear that there is any dispute of fact as to the boundaries of the West Point Military Reservation which the courts of this state have jurisdiction to determine under any authority which the state has attempted to, or indeed perhaps could, confer upon them.

[4] The political dominion of the state of New York extends over all the land within its territorial bounds, except where dominion over particular lands has become vested in some other political authority. The courts of Orange county have jurisdiction to try all charges of crime committed within the territorial bounds of the county, unless it clearly appears that the political dominion over the place where the crime was committed is not in the state of New York. Political dominion of the state over all places within its boundaries may be presumed, or, at least the state is not called upon to negative the existence of possible exception to such dominion. To oust the state of dominion over the place where the crime was committed, two facts must exist: First, that place must have been purchased by the United States government for military purposes; and second, the Legislature must have consented to such purchase. People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225;Ft. Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 5 S. Ct. 995, 29 L. Ed. 264.

[5] At the trial no evidence was offered of the boundaries of the West Point Military Reservation, but there is testimony by witnesses for the people that the land on all sides of the point on the highway where the crime was committed belongs to the United States and is part of the Military Reservation at West Point, and that the land about this point was known as the King Avery place. No evidence was produced at the trial to show the contents of the deeds by which the United States obtained title to this land, except the testimony of one...