An-HUNG YAO v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1775
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Yao and Lin are Houston, Texas residents who operate Generation Guns, importing airsoft guns from Taiwan for sale in Texas.
- H&K holds trademarks in the MP5 design; Indiana Continental investigators investigated alleged trademark infringement by Generation Guns.
- Indiana shipments to Huntington County, Indiana included GA-112 airsoft guns; some orders were placed by Indiana-based contacts and delivered to Indiana addresses.
- The State charged Yao and Lin with three counts of counterfeiting, three counts of theft, and one count of corrupt business influence; motions to dismiss were filed.
- The trial court dismissed the counterfeiting counts but denied dismissal of the theft and corrupt business influence counts; no ruling on jurisdictional issues was made.
- On interlocutory appeal, the court held there was no Indiana element to any offense; thus lack of territorial jurisdiction required dismissal of all charges and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana had territorial jurisdiction over the offenses | Lin argues no element occurred in Indiana | State contends Indiana had jurisdiction due to shipping and Indiana contacts | Lack of territorial jurisdiction; informations should be dismissed |
| Whether any element of theft occurred in Indiana | No conduct or result occurred in Indiana | Actions in Indiana occurred via Indiana-based communications and shipments | No element occurred in Indiana; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether the counterfeiting charges require a 'written instrument' and if the guns satisfy that | Airsoft guns could be counterfeited trademarks of H&K | Guns and marks do not fit the statutory written instrument within Indiana | Not reached due to jurisdiction ruling; remand for dismissal of all charges |
Key Cases Cited
- Ortiz v. State, 766 N.E.2d 370 (Ind.2002) (territorial jurisdiction is a factual issue with evidentiary disputes)
- Benham v. State, 637 N.E.2d 133 (Ind.1994) (trial court may dismiss for lack of territorial jurisdiction when record lacks Indiana element)
- McKinney v. State, 553 N.E.2d 860 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (jury instruction on territorial jurisdiction when factual disputes arise)
- State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281 (Ind.2008) (abuse of discretion standard for motions to dismiss)
- Truax v. State, 856 N.E.2d 116 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time)
- United States v. Smith, 173 F.227 (D.Ind.1909) (where acts are entirely within one district, extraterritorial reach is limited)