Commonwealth v. Vergilio, 103 A.3d 831

Commonwealth appeals after trial court dismissed terroristic threats charges for lack of jurisdiction.
Threats were allegedly made by Vergilio from New Jersey to a Pennsylvania victim; calls occurred December 3–4, 2011.
Victim received the threats in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, where the charges were ultimately pursued.
Trial court held jurisdiction lay where uttered, i.e., New Jersey, and dismissed the terroristic threats counts.
Commonwealth argues jurisdiction lies where the threat is received, emphasizing statutory language and policy.
Appellate court reverses, holding jurisdiction is proper in Pennsylvania because the victim received the threats there.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PA has jurisdiction over terroristic threats when threats are uttered in NJ but received in PA.	Vergilio; the threat was received in PA, satisfying 'communicates' element.	Vergilio; the threats were uttered in NJ, outside PA, lacking territorial nexus.	Yes; PA has jurisdiction because the victim received the threats in PA.

Commonwealth v. John, 854 A.2d 591 (Pa. Super. 2004) (solicitation/communication received in state establishes jurisdiction)
Commonwealth v. Sykes, 578 N.W.2d 807 (Minn. 1998) (threats received within state satisfy territorial jurisdiction)
Hawaii v. Meyers, 825 P.2d 1062 (Haw. 1992) (telephone threats communicated to victim in state establish jurisdiction)
Kansas v. Woolverton, 159 P.3d 985 (Kan. 2007) (communication element requires recipient perception; jurisdiction tied to where perceived)
Commonwealth v. Kelley, 664 A.2d 123 (Pa. Super. 1995) (communication of threat to recipient is key; recipient perception relevant)
Commonwealth v. Bighum, 307 A.2d 255 (Pa. 1973) (effects doctrine supports punishment where harm occurs)
Commonwealth v. Thomas, 189 A.2d 255 (Pa. 1963) (punishment justified where harm effectuates within state)