An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana, 975 N.E.2d 1273

Airsoft guns are used as look-alike weapons; Lin and Yao are alleged to have aided generation and shipment of these toys in Indiana.
H&K, a firearms manufacturer, pursued a trademark infringement inquiry leading to Indiana charges against Lin and Yao.
Charges included theft, counterfeiting, and corrupt business influence, based on alleged unauthorized control over property and on making/uttering a written instrument.
Trial court dismissed only the counterfeiting charges; theft and corrupt business influence remained, and jurisdictional issues were left unresolved.
Court of Appeals ruled all charges should be dismissed for lack of Indiana territorial jurisdiction; Supreme Court granted transfer and upheld in part, reversed in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court lacked territorial jurisdiction over the offenses	Lin and Yao argued no conduct or result occurred in Indiana	State contends Indiana has territorial jurisdiction over acts outside Indiana that affect Indiana	Jurisdiction remains; court did not abuse discretion on lack of dismissal
Whether the airsoft guns constitute a counterfeiting written instrument	Airsoft guns cannot be written instruments under the statute	Statute broad enough to include non-document instruments	Airsoft guns are written instruments under the counterfeiting statute; charges not dismissed
Whether the alleged acts constitute theft by exertion of unauthorized control over property	Trademarks/markings may not be property or subject to exertion of control	Tradesmarks/marks are property that can be subject to theft if controlled improperly	Trademarks/markings can be viewed as property; sufficiency depends on evidence at trial; dismissal not warranted at this stage

Benham v. State, 637 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 1994) (territorial jurisdiction treated as an element; prove beyond a reasonable doubt)
Ortiz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370 (Ind. 2002) (jurisdictional element required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
McKinney v. State, 553 N.E.2d 860 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (preliminary jurisdictional question considered; jury instruction possible if disputed)
Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280 (U.S. 1911) (criminal jurisdiction extends to effects felt within a state by acts outside it)
Jacobs v. State, 640 N.E.2d 61 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (written instrument definition broadened to include objects of value; trademarks on apparel)