State v. Michael Sumulikoski / State v. Artur Sopel (072957)
110 A.3d 856
| N.J. | 2015Background
- Paramus Catholic High School chaperones Sumulikoski and Sopel accompanied a student group to Europe, with conduct alleged only in Germany.
- Three seventeen-year-old victims alleged sexual misconduct by the chaperones during the Germany trip, later reported to authorities in New Jersey.
- Indictments in Bergen County charged Sumulikoski with multiple sexual assault and endangering counts, and Sopel with multiple sexual assault and endangering counts; some counts related to acts in Germany, others in New Jersey or involving separate incidents.
- The trial court and Appellate Division held that New Jersey had territorial jurisdiction under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(1) because of the defendants’ supervisory roles and assumed responsibilities in New Jersey.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that no territorial jurisdiction existed for the Germany-based acts because those elements occurred entirely outside New Jersey and status-based elements cannot support jurisdiction.
- The case was remanded to proceed on counts relating to other charges (witness tampering, NJ-based offenses) while counts involving Germany were dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Jersey has territorial jurisdiction for acts in Germany | Sumulikoski/Sopel: jurisdiction exists via supervisory/assumed duties in NJ | Jurisdiction requires conduct in NJ; status-based elements cannot satisfy 2C:1-3(a)(1) | No territorial jurisdiction; Germany-based conduct cannot be prosecuted in NJ |
| Whether supervisory power over a victim constitutes conduct for jurisdiction | Status may reflect conduct that occurred in NJ | Status alone cannot constitute conduct for jurisdiction under 2C:1-3(a)(1) | Status-based elements do not satisfy jurisdiction |
| Whether assumption of responsibility for care can sustain jurisdiction | Assuming responsibility in NJ creates conduct for jurisdiction | Assumption of responsibility is a status, not conduct; risks due process | Assumption of responsibility does not support NJ jurisdiction |
| Whether due process limits extraterritorial application of NJ criminal law | Broad application is permissible given NJ interests | Extraterritorial application must meet due process; no nexus here | Due process concerns support dismissing NJ charges for overseas acts |
| Remand scope and handling of remaining NJ-based charges | NJ-based charges should proceed unchanged | Invalid to keep Germany-based counts; focus on remaining counts | Counts 1-9, 12-16 dismissed; remand for Counts 10, 11, 17-25 |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Denofa, 187 N.J. 24 (2006) (territorial jurisdiction basics for NJ prosecutions)
- State v. Streater, 233 N.J. Super. 537 (App. Div. 1989) (jurisdiction when offenses committed partly outside NJ)
- State v. Ishaque, 312 N.J. Super. 207 (Law Div. 1997) (status vs conduct distinction in jurisdiction)
- State v. Galloway, 133 N.J. 631 (1993) (assumption of responsibility and endangering welfare scope)
- State v. Sanders, 230 N.J. Super. 233 (App. Div. 1989) (conduct-focused approach to endangering child offenses)