State v. Butler
Decision Date | 19 February 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 65,65 |
Citation | 353 Md. 67,724 A.2d 657 |
Parties | STATE of Maryland v. Terrence Zachary BUTLER. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Celia Anderson Davis, Asst. Atty. Gen., (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.
Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Argued before BELL, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, CHASANOW, RAKER, WILNER and CATHELL, JJ.
Terrence Zachary Butler, respondent, was tried and convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County on charges related to the deaths of three individuals: his former girlfriend, Marvis Willis; Ms. Willis's brother, Raynard Willis; and Ms. Willis's son, Donnell Willis. The jury found respondent guilty of the following: Count one: second degree murder of Marvis Willis; count two: use of a handgun in the commission of a felony in the murder of Marvis Willis; count three: second degree murder of Donnell Willis; count four: first degree murder of Raynard Willis; and count five: use of a handgun in the commission of a felony in the murder of Raynard Willis. The court sentenced respondent to life without parole for count four and additional consecutive sentences of thirty years each for counts one and three and twenty years each for counts two and five.
Respondent appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed his convictions in an unreported opinion and remanded the case to the circuit court. The State petitioned this Court for writ of certiorari on April 17, 1998, and respondent filed a cross-petition on April 22, 1998. We granted both petitions to address an important issue raised in this matter. As rephrased by the State in its brief before this Court, petitioner presents question one for our review and respondent presents question two:
We shall affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals as to the first question. Because respondent's convictions are reversed and remanded, we need not address the second question.
We shall set forth the relevant facts in this case as described by the Court of Special Appeals in its opinion below:
Appellant was charged and convicted of the murders of Marvis Willis, his former girlfriend, her brother Raynard, and her three-year-old son Donnell. The bodies were discovered in Raynard's leased car in northwest Washington, D.C., when the D.C. Fire Department was called to investigate a vehicle fire. All three bodies were wrapped in bedding that had been secured with cellophane tape. The bodies of Donnell and Raynard were found in the passenger compartment of the car, while Marvis's body was discovered in the trunk. Police investigators determined that the fire had been set deliberately with flammable liquid and an open flame.
In the case before us, the question is if a dispute exists as to whether the crime for which the defendant is accused occurred within Maryland, is such a determination an issue of law for the court to decide or is it a factual determination to be made by the trier of fact? This Court has never addressed this issue squarely.
The State argues to this Court, as it did to the Court of Special Appeals, that when a criminal defendant challenges a court's territorial jurisdiction, that issue should be raised prior to trial and determined by the trial judge. The State proffers several reasons for this conclusion. First, the State claims a challenge to a court's territorial jurisdiction strikes at the very "foundation of the court's authority," and therefore should be determined by the court as a matter of law. Second, the State argues, territorial jurisdiction is a threshold issue that should be challenged prior to trial. In that vein, the State analogizes territorial jurisdiction to the determination of venue, which is normally decided by the court upon a mandatory pretrial motion to dismiss pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-252. Finally, the State argues that even if this Court were to determine that a challenge to the trial court's territorial jurisdiction need not be made prior to trial, the issue is one of law to be decided by the trial court and not a factual determination to be made by the trier of fact.
Respondent, on the other hand, argues that when facts relating to the location of the crime are in dispute, the matter should be resolved by the trier of fact. Second, contrary to the State, respondent argues venue and territorial jurisdiction are not analogous and should not be treated similarly. Respondent also contends that the majority of states and the federal circuits submit the issue of territorial jurisdiction to the trier of fact. Finally, respondent argues that when the issue of territorial jurisdiction is submitted to the trier of fact, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that criminal conduct occurred in Maryland.
The Court of Special Appeals, relying on Burral v. State, 118 Md.App. 288, 702 A.2d 781 (1997), cert. granted, 349 Md. 105, 707 A.2d 90 (1998), held that the "question of territorial jurisdiction was a question of fact for the jury and that the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the crimes were committed in Maryland." Therefore, the intermediate appellate court held, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury to resolve the issue of territorial jurisdiction.
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: "[T]he Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, made applicable to state judicial proceedings by the Fourteenth Amendment, 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....'" Trindle v. State, 326 Md. 25, 38, 602 A.2d 1232, 1238 (1992) (Eldridge, J., dissenting in part and concurring in part) ). We said in Bowen v. State, 206 Md. 368, 375, 111 A.2d 844, 847 (1955), that See also Martel v. State, 221 Md. 294, 299, 157 A.2d 437, 440,
cert. denied, 363 U.S. 849, 80 S.Ct. 1628, 4 L.Ed.2d 1732 (1960). Commentators are in accord with this description. See, e.g., Annotation, Comment Note—Necessity of Proving Venue or Territorial Jurisdiction of Criminal Offense Beyond Reasonable Doubt, 67 A.L.R.3d 988, § 10, at 1004 (1975) (). Venue, then, pertains to the county in which a case can be tried; territorial jurisdiction concerns whether the offense was committed within the boundaries of the State.
We are bound as to the issue of territorial jurisdiction by the restraints of common law. This Court has noted that "under the common law ... a state may punish only those crimes committed within...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burton v. Mumford
...he had, the correct name of the county is insignificant because it was only necessary for the Governor to be satisfied that Burton was “in Maryland ” in order to issue a Governor's Warrant of Rendition. (Emphasis in original).The record reveals that only two documents reference Wicomico Cou......
-
People v. Betts
...860, 863-864; State v. Liggins (Iowa 1994) 524 N.W.2d 181, 184-185; State v. Collin (Me.1997) 687 A.2d 962, 964; State v. Butler (1999) 353 Md. 67, 724 A.2d 657, 663; People v. McLaughlin (1992) 80 N.Y.2d 466, 591 N.Y.S.2d 966, 606 N.E.2d 1357, 1359-1360; State v. Batdorf (1977) 293 N.C. 48......
-
Khalifa v. State
...rights by applying the law to the facts"). Territorial jurisdiction is a factual issue for the trier of fact. State v. Butler, 353 Md. 67, 79-80, 724 A.2d 657, 663 (1999) (holding that "when evidence exists that the crime may have been committed outside Maryland's territorial jurisdiction a......
-
People v. Gayheart
...has in fact occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the court when the matter is placed in issue. See, e.g., State v. Butler, 353 Md. 67, 79, 724 A.2d 657 (1999) (holding that "when evidence exists that the crime may have been committed outside Maryland's territorial jurisdiction an......
-
Lines in the sand: the importance of borders in American federalism.
...states or foreign countries.'" (quoting State v. Stephens, 107 A. 296, 297 (Me. 1919))). (2) MD. CONST. art. 20. (3) Maryland v. Butler, 724 A.2d 657, 660 (Md. 1999) (quoting Bowen v. State, 111 A.2d 844, 847 (Md. (4) See State v. Cochran, 538 P.2d 791, 793 (Idaho 1975) (holding that, as a ......
-
Territorial Jurisdiction in Ohio Post-Wogenstahl.
...the "detrimental effects" doctrine from Strassheim through judicial rulings rather than through statutes. See, e.g., State v. Butler, 724 A.2d 657, 663 n.5 (Md. 1999) (stating Maryland legislature has not expanded state's jurisdiction through (77.) See, e.g., Berge, supra note 21, at 254 n.......