$312. § 313. Act in one country, state or county taking effect in another. § 314. Larceny-Taking in one county and carrying into another. $315. Taking in one state and carrying into another. § 316. — Taking in one country and carrying into another, or taking on the § 323. Selling articles in violation of law-In general. $324. Selling or disposing of mortgaged property. § 325. Threatening letters. § 326. Other miscellaneous offenses. III. JURISDICTION AND POWER TO PUNISH AS BETWEEN STATES AND UNITED STATES § 327. In general. § 328. Conflict between state and federal statutes. § 329. Police power. $ 330. Amenability of federal employees to state statutes. $331. Offenses committed on the high seas. § 332. Offenses on waters within territorial limits of a state. § 333. United States forts, arsenals, dockyards, etc. § 334. Offenses by and against Indians and on Indian reservations. $335. Commerce with Indians. § 336. Army and navy. § 337. Aliens. § 338. Ambassadors and consuls. $339. Civil rights. § 340. Election offenses. § 341. Offenses against or by means of the mails. § 342. Offenses against national banks. § 343. Counterfeiting. § 344. Perjury. § 345. Other illustrations. I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES § 276. In general. A crime is essentially local and can be prosecuted and punished only in the sovereignty offended.1 The criminal or penal laws of a state or country have no extraterritorial effect, and will not be enforced by the courts of any other state or country.2 1 People v. Downs, 136 N. Y. Supp. 440. 2 United States. Huntington V. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 36 L. Ed. 1123, 13 Sup. Ct. 224; Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265, 32 L. Ed. 239, 8 Sup. Ct. 1370; The Antelope, 10 Wheat. (23 U. S.) 66, 6 L. Ed. 268. And "the general and almost universal rule is that the character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the country where the act is done." Ordinarily, therefore, the courts of a country or state have no jurisdiction to punish for offenses committed beyond its territorial limits, and statutes permitting them to do so are unconstitutional and void. And criminal statutes, though general in their terms, will be construed, in accordance with this principle, as intended to apply only to acts committed within the territorial limits of the country or state enacting them. Indiana. Johns v. State, 19 Ind. 421, 81 Am. Dec. 408. New York. Adams v. Dick, 103 Misc. 259, 170 N. Y. Supp. 17; People v. Merrill, 2 Park. Cr. 590. North Carolina. State v. Ray, 151 N. C. 710, 66 S. E. 204, 134 Am. St. Rep. 1005, 19 Ann. Cas. 566; State v. Buchanan, 130 N. C. 660, 41 S. E. 107; State v. Hall, 114 N. C. 909, 19 S. E. 602, 28 L. R. A. 59, 41 Am. St. Rep. 822. Virginia. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. American Exch. Bank, 92 Va. 495, 23 S. E. 935, 44 L. R. A. 449. 8 American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, 53 L. Ed. 826, 29 Sup. Ct. 511, 16 Ann. Cas. 1047; State v. Cutshall, 110 N. C. 538, 15 S. E. 261, 16 L. R. A. 130. 4 United States. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, 53 L. Ed. 826, 29 Sup. Ct. 511, 16 Ann. Cas. 1047; United States v. Davis, 2 Sumn. 482, Fed. Cas. No. 14,932. Arkansas. Wilson v. State, 97 Ark. 412, 134 S. W. 623; Beattie v. State, 73 Ark. 428, 84 S. W. 477. Illinois. Phillips v. People, 55 Ill. 429. Indiana. Cruthers v. State, 161 Ind. 139, 67 N. E. 930; Stewart v. Jessup, 51 Ind. 413, 19 Am. Rep. 739; Johns v. State, 19 Ind. 421, 81 Am. Dec. 408. Maine. State v. Stephens, 118 Me. 237, 107 Atl. 296; State v. Le Blanc, 115 Me. 142, 98 Atl. 119. Michigan. Tyler v. People, 8 Mich. 320; People v. Tyler, 7 Mich. 161, 74 Am. Dec. 703. Missouri. State v. Gritzner, 134 Mo. 512, 36 S. W. 39. New Jersey. State v. Wyckoff, 31 N. J. L. 65; State v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 499. New York. People v. Merrill, 2 Park. Cr. 590. North Carolina. In re Ebbs, 150 N. C. 44, 63 S. E. 190, 19 L. R. A. (N. S). 892, 17 Ann. Cas. 592; State v. Hall, 114 N. C. 909, 19 S. E. 602, 41 Am. St. Rep. 822; State v. Cutshall, 110 N. C. 538, 15 S. E. 261, 16 L R. A. 130; State v. Barnett, 83 N. C. 615. England. Reg. v. Keyn, L. R. 2 Exch. Div. 63, 13 Cox C. C. 403. 5 People v. Price, 250 Ill. 109, 95 N. E. 68; State v. Stephens, 118 Me. 237, 107 Atl. 296; State v. Le Blanc, 115 Me. 142, 98 Atl. 119; State v. Carter, 27 N. J. L. 499; In re Ebbs, 150 N. C. 44, 63 S. E. 190, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 892, 17 Ann. Cas. 592; State v. Cutshall, 110 N. C. 538, 15 S. E. 261, 16 L. R. A. 130; State v. Knight, 2 Hayw. (3 N. C.) 109, s. c., Tayl. (1 N. C. 143) 65. 6 American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U. S. 347, 53 L. Ed. 826, 29 Sup. Ct. 511, 16 Ann. Cas. 1047; United States v. Pirates, 5 Wheat. (18 But a country or state may punish acts committed outside of its territorial limits which take effect and constitute an offense within its limits, and may provide for the punishment of its citizens for acts committed outside of its territorial limits. A nation may also punish offenses committed on its vessels, wherever they may be, since they are regarded as a part of its territory. And piracy may be punished by any nation by which the offender may be apprehended, since it is an offense against all nations.10 The word penal is used in this connection in its strict primary sense, as denoting punishment, whether corporal or pecuniary, imposed and enforced by the state for a crime or offense against its laws.11 It includes not only prosecutions and sentences for crimes. and misdemeanors, but also all suits in favor of the state for the recovery of pecuniary penalties for the violation of its laws, and all judgments for such penalties; 12 but does not include extraordinary liabilities, in excess of the damages suffered, to which the law may subject a wrongdoer in favor of the person wronged, and which are often called penalties.18 And the question whether a law is penal in the international sense, so that it cannot be enforced in the courts of another state, depends upon whether its purpose is to punish an offense against the public justice of the state, or to afford a private remedy to a person injured by the wrongful act.14 § 277. Same act may be an offense against different sovereignties. The same act may constitute an offense against a state and the United States, 15 or against two states, 16 or against a state and a municipal U. S.) 184, 5 L. Ed. 64; United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. (16 U. S.) 610, 4 L. Ed. 471; People v. Tyler, 7 Mich. 161, 74 Am. Dec. 703; People v. Merrill, 2 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 590; Wilson v. State, 16 Okla. Cr. 471, 184 Pac. 603. 7 See § 287, infra. 8 See § 286, infra. 9 See § 283, infra. 10 See § 1560, infra. 11 Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 36 L. Ed. 1123, 13 Sup. Ct. 224. 12 Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 36 L. Ed. 1123, 13 Sup. Ct. 224; Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265, 32 L. Ed. 239, 8 Sup. Ct. 1370; Adams v. Dick, 103 N. Y. Misc. 259, 13 Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 36 L. Ed. 1123, 13 Sup. Ct. 224; Adams v. Dick, 103 N. Y. Misc. 259, 170 N. Y. Supp. 17. 14 Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 36 L. Ed. 1123, 13 Sup. Ct. 224; Adams v. Dick, 103 N. Y. Misc. 259, 170 N. Y. Supp. 17; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. American Exch. Bank, 92 Va. 495, 23 S. E. 935, 44 L. R. A. 449. 15 See § 327, infra. 16 Strobhar v. State, 55 Fla. 167, 47 So. 4; Phillips v. People, 55 Ill. corporation,17 in which case either of them may punish the person committing it for the violation of its laws. 429; Bloomer v. State, 48 Md. 521; Marshall v. State, 6 Neb. 120, 29 Am. Rep. 363. 17 United States. McLaughlin v. Stephens, 2 Cranch C. C. 148, Fed. Cas. No. 8,874. Alabama. Black v. State, 144 Ala. 92, 40 So. 611; Harris v. State, 128 Ala. 41, 29 So. 581; City of Mobile v. Allaire, 14 Ala. 400; Bell v. State, 16 Ala. App. 36, 75 So. 181, certiorari denied, 200 Ala. 364, 76 So. 1. Arkansas. Van Buren v. Wells, 53 Ark. 368, 14 S. W. 38, 22 Am. St. Rep. 214. California. Ex parte Hongshen, 98 Cal. 681, 33 Pac. 799. Colorado. McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302, 29 Pac. 516; Hughes v. People, 8 Colo. 536, 9 Pac. 50. Florida. Bueno v. State, 40 Fla. 160, 23 So. 862; Hunt v. City of Jacksonville, 34 Fla. 504, 16 So. 398, 43 Am. St. Rep. 214; Thieson v. McDavid, 34 Fla. 440, 16 So. 321, 26 L. R. A. 234. Georgia. Hood v. Von Glahn, 88 Ga. 405, 14 S. E. 564; De Graffenreid v. State, 72 Ga. 212; McRae v. Americus, 59 Ga. 168, 27 Am. Rep. 390; Morris v. State, 18 Ga. App. 684, 90 S. E. 361. Idaho. In re Henry, 15 Idaho 755, 99 Pac. 1054, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 207; State v. Preston, 4 Idaho 215, 38 Pac. 694. Illinois. Hankins v. People, 106 Ill. 628; Robbins v. People, 95 Ill. 175; Wragg v. Penn Tp., 94 Ill. 11. Indiana. Ambrose v. State, 6 Ind. 351; Levy v. State, 6 Ind. 281. Iowa. Town of Neola v. Reichart, 131 Iowa 492, 109 N. W. 5; Town of Bloomfield v. Trimble, 54 Iowa 399, 6 N. W. 586, 37 Am. Rep. 212. Kentucky. Ehrlick v. Com., 125 Ky. 742, 102 S. W. 289, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 995, 128 Am. St. Rep. 269; Lucas v. Com., 118 Ky. 818, 82 S. W. 440; Respass v. Com., 107 Ky. 139, 53 S. W. 24; Com. v. Parks, 11 Ky. L. Rep. (abst.) 403. Louisiana. State v. Fourcade, 45 La. Ann. 717, 13 So. 187; State v. Recorder of First Recorder's Court, 30 La. Ann. 450. Maryland. Md. 331. Shafer v. Mumma, 17 Michigan. People v. Detroit White Lead Works, 82 Mich. 471, 46 N. W. 735, 9 L. R. A. 722; People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N. W. 1124, 4 L. R. A. 751. Minnesota. State v. Lee, 29 Minn. 445, 13 N. W. 913; State v. Ludwig, 21 Minn. 202. Mississippi. Miss. 543. Johnson v. State, 59 Missouri. State v. Gustin, 152 Mo. 108, 53 S. W. 421. Nebraska. Halter v. State, 74 Neb. 757, 105 N. W. 298, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1079, 121 Am. St. Rep. 754, aff'd 205 U. S. 34, 51 L. Ed. 696, 27 Sup. Ct. 419, 10 Ann. Cas. 525. New Jersey. Howe v. Treasurer of Plainfield, 37 N. J. L. 145. New York. Rogers v. Jones, 1 Wend. 237. North Carolina. State v. Lytle, 138 N. C. 738, 51 S. E. 66; State v. Taylor, 133 N. C. 755, 46 S. E. 5; State v. Stevens, 114 N. C. 873, 19 S. E. 861. Ohio. Koch v. State, 53 Ohio St. 433, 41 N. E. 689. Oklahoma. In re Monroe, 13 Okla. Cr. 62, 162 Pac. 233; In re Simmons, 4 Okla. Cr. 662, 112 Pac. 951. Oregon. State v. Sly, 4 Ore. 277. South Carolina. State v. Sanders, § 278. Jurisdiction as between counties. Generally at common law a person accused of crime had a right to be tried in the county in which the offense was committed.18 And the constitutions of many of the states expressly give him this right.19 But in the absence of such a provision, the legislature may authorize a trial in some other county.20 The Federal Constitution gives to persons accused of crimes against 68 S. C. 192, 47 S. E. 55; Dickson v. O'Donnell, 29 S. C. 355. South Dakota. City of Yankton v. Douglass, 8 S. D. 441, 66 N. W. 923. Tennessee. Greenwood v. State, 65 Tenn. (6 Baxt.) 567. Texas. Hamilton v. State, 3 Tex. App. 643. 18 Watt v. People, 126 Ill. 9, 18 N. E. 340, 1. L. R. A. 403; State v. Damon, 97 Me. 323, 54 Atl. 845. 19 See the constitutions of the various states and the following cases: Arkansas. Dougan v. State, 30 Ark. 41. Kentucky. Com. v. Ward, 185 Ky. 295, 215 S. W. 31. Louisiana. State v. Moore, 140 La. 281, 72 So. 965; St. John v. M. A. Talbot & Son, 132 La. 86, 60 So. 1028; State v. Montgomery, 115 La. 155, 38 So. 949. Michigan. A constitutional provision that the right of trial by jury shall remain has been construed to require a trial in the county where the offense was committed. People v. Brock, 149 Mich. 464, 112 N. W. 1116, 119 Am. St. Rep. 684; Swart v. Kimball, 43 Mich. 443, 5 N. W. 635. Missouri. State v. Mispagel, 207 Mo. 557, 106 S. W. 513; State v. Anderson, 191 Mo. 134, 90 S. W. 95; State v. Smiley, 98 Mo. 605, 12 S. W. 247; In re McDonald, 19 Mo. App. 370. Tennessee. Craig V. State, 3 Heisk. (50 Tenn.) 227; Armstrong v. State, 1 Coldw. (41 Tenn.) 338. Washington. State v. Reese, 112 Wash. 507, 192 Pac. 934. West Virginia. State v. Lowe, 21 W. Va. 782, 45 Am. Rep. 570. 20 California. In re McDonald, 20 Cal. App. 641, 129 Pac. 957. Maine. State v. Damon, 97 Me. 323, 54 Atl. 845. New York. Mack v. People, 82 N. Y. 235; People v. Hanley, 109 Misc. 591, 180 N. Y. Supp. 342. North Carolina. State v. Lewis, 142 N. C. 626, 55 S. E. 600, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 669, 9 Ann. Cas. 604. Texas. Eckermann v. State, 57 Tex. Cr. 287, 123 S. W. 424; Dies v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. 32, 117 S. W. 979; Mischer v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 212, 53 S. W. 627, 96 Am. St. Rep. 780. In Illinois the Constitution requires a trial in the county where the offense is alleged to have been committed, and it has been held that this provision gives the legislature power to provide for prosecution of offenses in counties other than those in which they were committed. Watt v. People, 126 Ill. 9, 18 N. E. 340, 1 L. R. A. 403. A statute giving jurisdiction over the offense of lynching to the courts of any county adjoining that in which the crime is committed is valid under such circumstances, State V. Lewis, 142 N. C. 626, 55 S. E. 600, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 669, 9 Ann. Cas. 604; and such a provision applies to a prosecution for an attempt to commit the offense. State v. Rumple, 178 N. C. 717, 100 S. E. 622. |