People v. Utter
24 Cal. App.3d 535, 1972 Cal. App. LEXIS 1153, 101 Cal. Rptr. 214 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a California court to assert territorial jurisdiction over a crime completed outside the state, the defendant's acts within California must constitute a criminal attempt, which requires actions beyond mere preparation. However, state law explicitly provides jurisdiction over an out-of-state robbery if the stolen property is subsequently brought into California.
Facts:
- Thomas Devins, a real estate broker, engaged in a series of complex and fraudulent real estate transactions involving Norma Wilson, a wealthy property owner.
- Devins's fraudulent activities led to Wilson's attorney becoming concerned that Devins had improperly gained control of her assets and was defrauding her.
- Devins convinced Wilson to travel with him and an associate, Robert Forget, to Montreal and then Europe under the false pretense of meeting foreign investors for a real estate project.
- While in a hotel in Madrid, Spain, Devins told Forget that he needed to kill Wilson because her accountant and attorney had discovered his fraudulent schemes and he feared legal repercussions.
- After Wilson was last seen in Locarno, Switzerland, she disappeared and her body was never found.
- Devins returned to Los Angeles and showed Forget Wilson's passport and her distinctive jewelry—an emerald ring, a diamond watch, and a pearl choker—which he was carrying in his car's glove compartment.
- Devins admitted to Forget that he had shot and killed Wilson with a 9mm pistol.
- A box containing Wilson's blood-stained clothing and personal items was later discovered in a locker at a railway station in Geneva, Switzerland.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Edward Utter was charged in a California trial court with murder, robbery, and three counts of grand theft.
- The trial court denied Utter's motion to suppress evidence.
- The trial court granted a motion for acquittal on one count of grand theft.
- A jury found Utter guilty of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and two counts of grand theft, and found that he was armed during the murder and robbery.
- The jury deadlocked on the penalty for the murder, and the court imposed a life sentence.
- Utter (as appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a California court have jurisdiction over charges of murder and robbery when the crimes were committed entirely outside the state, but the defendant planned the trip in California and later brought the stolen property back into the state?
Opinions:
Majority - Jefferson, Acting P. J.
No as to the murder, but Yes as to the robbery. While Penal Code § 27(2) explicitly grants California jurisdiction over a robbery committed outside the state if the stolen property is brought into California, jurisdiction over the murder charge is lacking. Citing the binding precedent of People v. Buffum, the court held that general jurisdictional statutes (§§ 27(1) and 778a) require that the defendant's acts within the state rise to the level of a criminal 'attempt,' not merely 'preparation.' Here, Devins's actions in California—such as inducing Wilson to travel, purchasing tickets, and acquiring a weapon—constituted only mere preparation for the murder. Because these acts did not amount to an attempt to commit murder within California, the state lacks jurisdiction over that specific charge. However, because Devins brought the jewelry he stole from Wilson back to California, the court had clear statutory jurisdiction over the robbery.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates a critical limitation on California's extraterritorial jurisdiction, strictly adhering to the precedent set in People v. Buffum. The case creates a sharp distinction between general jurisdiction, which requires an in-state 'attempt,' and specific statutory exceptions, like the one for bringing stolen property into the state. The court's reluctant application of the Buffum rule, which it notes has been heavily criticized, produces a seemingly incongruous result: the state can prosecute the robbery but not the murder that was the ultimate object of the criminal enterprise. This highlights a potential gap in the law where preparatory acts, no matter how elaborate, are insufficient to establish jurisdiction for a crime consummated elsewhere.
