People v. Blume

Mich v BLUME PEOPLE 1). (Calendar 2, Argued April Docket No. 93707. No. Decided 31, August 1993. Blume, resident, charged D. a Florida was in the 9-2 Michael conspiracy possess Judicial District with to deliver or Court cocaine, grams with intent to deliver more than 650 and aiding abetting possession and the manufacture or with grams intent to manufacture or to deliver more than 650 court, Fricke, J., cocaine. The Kenneth A. dismissed the charges, concluding that because the did not occur Michigan encouragement given in and no aid or in Michi- gan, Michigan jurisdiction. did not have The Kalamazoo Circuit Court, Schma, J., reversed, ordering William G. reinstatement charges holding charges brought and both could be produce in because acts Florida were intended to produce actually Michigan. did in detrimental effects The Court P.J., Jr., Appeals, Doctoroff, D. E. Holbrook, JJ., unpublished opinion per Fitzgerald, affirmed an curiam (Docket 129818). appeals. No. The defendant opinion by joined by Cavanagh, In an Chief Justice Justices Supreme Levin, Brickley, Griffin, Court held: Michigan may extraterritorial exercise over acts Michigan committed outside where the acts are intended to and do have a detrimental effect within the state. 1. One who aids and abets the commission of a substantive automatically subject crime that occurs is not Michigan. person

trial must have intended to aid and knowledge enough abet a crime Mere is not permit jurisdiction. exercise of extraterritorial conspiracy, spe 2. To establish a there must be evidence of accomplish illegal cific intent to combine with others to an objective. existing A defendant become a member anof conspiracy by cooperating knowingly object. to further its Wit knowledge, However, there can be no intent. mere knowl- hout References 2d, 22, 87, Am Jur Courts Criminal Law 345. § §§ Law; See ALR Index under Criminal Jurisdiction. Opinion of the Court edge proposed insufficient to find unlawful action alone is of a conspiracy. involvement case, basis to was an insufficient factual 3. In this there showing jurisdiction. no There was assert extraterritorial effect have a detrimental with the intent to the defendant acted cooperated knowingly Michigan, to of or or that he knew addition, conspiracy. objectives the defen- In further the of a beyond initial sale. in the cocaine dant had no interest Reversed. Riley Mallett, Boyle, joined and dissent- Justices Justice proscribe Legislature may ing, conduct stated that Michigan in- physical is borders of outside the occurs actually produces produce effect a detrimental and tended Michigan Thus, Michigan. tried in a a Florida resident abetting Michigan aiding resi- conspiracy and and court Michigan, delivery of cocaine in connection with the dent to, with, Michigan alleged agreement and aid where the case, supports In this the evidence resident occurred in Florida. magistrate’s act. determination — Jurisdiction. Law Extraterritorial Criminal jurisdiction over acts Michigan may exercise extraterritorial Michigan intended to and where the acts are committed outside the state. effect within do have detrimental Attorney Kelley, General, L. Thomas Frank J. Gregart, Casey, ecuting Attorney, Pros- General, James Solicitor Joseph Skocelas, Assis- S. and people. Prosecuting Attorney, for the tant the defendant. Wilkinson for W. John today decide whether must C.J. We Cavanagh, allegedly punish Michigan may committed acts Michi- hold that resident. We a Florida Florida gan may over exercise extraterritorial Michigan the acts when committed outside acts are intended effect have a detrimental to and do prosecutor Here, claims the state. within conspiracy aided in a was involved defendant in Michi- of a crime the commission abetted person gan he to whom that the he knew because disagree. We from cocaine was sold 443 Mich 476 Opinion op the Court prosecutor only "knowledge” refers to which support part necessary a convic- of the evidence aiding abetting. conspiracy But tion for enough knowledge alone is not to exercise extra- prosecutor pre- jurisdiction.1 The must territorial intended to commit sent evidence that defendant intent a detrimental effect an act with the have That intent does not exist in this within this state. case. Appeals Accordingly, we reverse the Court of decision,2 and reinstate the district court’s dis- charges. missal of the

I Defendant, Blume, Michael is a Florida resident charged who is deliver or than 650 abetting

possession with intent to deliver more grams aiding of cocaine3 and with possession the manufacture or with intent grams 650 to manufacture or deliver The of cocaine.4 complaint alleges June, 1988, that in defen- Michigan Hoyt, dant sold cocaine Randall a place The entire transaction took in Flor- resident. ida. purchasing Hoyt defendant,

After cocaine from Michigan. Michigan returned State Police below, knowledge similarly As in discussed alone this case is not enough aiding abetting. to convict defendant of facts, Appeals It must be noted that the Court of misstated the it which Florida was done with intent effects within January found "sufficient to establish that defendant’s conduct in produce produce and did detrimental curiam, Michigan.” Unpublished opinion per decided (Docket 129818), p Appeals No. 1. The Court of “Hoyt Hoyt stated Michigan testified defendant knew that was from Hoyt going days. Hoyt and that would be back in several explained splitting up to defendant that he was the cocaine with First, Michigan.” Hoyt another individual Id. never testified. Furthermore, Hoyt may dumped also officer admitted that have Apparently, Hoyt in the cocaine ocean. was unsure himself of where the cocaine would be distributed. 28.354(1). 750.157a; MCL MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(i). 333.7401(2)(a)(i); MCL MSA Opinion of the Court upon discovering subsequently Hoyt arrested apart- during Hoyt’s a search of kilo of cocaine purchased police Hoyt that he ment. informed the in Florida. The cocaine from defendant while the prosecutor complaint charging filed defendant. quash being arraigned, moved to After the defendant complaint charges jurisdiction. for lack only prosecution wit- Palenick was the Officer hearing motion to testified at the on the ness who quash jurisdiction. explained He for lack of Hoyt ing intend- told him that he traveled to Florida sup- purchase prearranged from a cocaine began Hoyt plier. looking connection, to find his Unable up supplier. Hoyt met with for a new Apparently, met each the two had defendant. other exercised. for the sale of cocaine. place through previously gyma at which both arrangements Hoyt made and defendant The entire transaction took any not have in Florida. Defendant did Hoyt Hoyt while contact Hoyt testified that before the sale. Officer Palenick that he was from that defendant was aware said Michigan. at Palenick and defendant testified After Officer charges hearing, the trial court dismissed conspir- finding any jurisdiction, if for lack involving acy defendant, it occurred occurred give Florida, aid or and that did not defendant encouragement Michigan. re- The circuit court charges and ordered reinstatement versed finding upon acts intended that defendant’s were actually produce detrimental effects to and did Appeals affirmed.5 We The Court of upon finding appeal, granted and, leave to jurisdiction in this case of extraterritorial exercise inappropriate, and order reinstatement we reverse charges. trial court’s dismissal of the 5 2. See n

480 443 Mich 476 Opinion of the Court II general proper The rule is that only over "offenses as be committed within its jurisdiction.” People Devine, 50, 52-53; v 185 Mich (1915). authority 151 NW 646 to exercise jurisdiction over acts that occur outside the state’s physical developed6 exception borders as an to the against jurisdiction. rule extraterritorial That ex- ception, however, is "limited to those that are acts actually have, have, intended to and that do detrimental effect within the state.” Strassheim v Daily, 280, 285; 558; 221 US 31 S 55 L 735 Ct Ed (1911); Newaygo Sheriff, 440, Deur v 420 Mich 446- (1984). 447; 362 698 NW2d This state has not defined the boundaries of the exception,7 consistently required finding but has the actor intended a detrimental effect to e.g., supra. See, Deur, occur this state. The two key requirement specific elements of that are in- Rental, Inc, 406, Ryder See Sexton v Truck 413 Mich (1982). Perhaps pragmatically, recognize NW2d 843 more we "[mjodern political except criminals little have concern for boundaries effecting purpose.” Berge, as such boundaries are an aid in a criminal principle, Criminal and the territorial L R Mich (1931). Moreover, sense, a broader the factors of interstate "[i]n centers, crime, population organized mobility, and recidivism reveal that each state has an interest in crimes committed in other states.” Rotenberg, legislative jurisdiction Extraterritorial and the crimi state law, 763, (1960). Thus, nal 38 Tex L R 766-767 blind adherence to a purely state’s activity. concept jurisdiction inadequately territorial addresses the protecting interest its citizens from the results of criminal abrogated The common law is the law of the state unless changed constitution, Legislature, or the Court. Const 3, Stevenson, 7; People 383, 389; art § Mich 331 NW2d 143 states, Michigan legislation Unlike some has not enacted generally defining the reach of its criminal statutes. But see MCL 762.6; (allowing prosecution MSA 28.849 for mortal state”); wound inflicted MCL property Michigan). one "within or without the limits of this 767.64; (allowing prosecution Michigan MSA 28.1004 "any country” brought stolen in other state or into People 481 Opinion op the Court tent to act and the intent that the harm occur in Michigan.8 proper analysis

A for this Court is to determine aiding abetting conspiracy whether charge Then, could established the evidence. conspiracy the Court must determine whether the or crime that was aided and abetted was intended Michigan.9 to occur in

III " conspiracy partnership 'A is a criminal ” People purposes.’ Atley, 298, 310; 220 v 392 Mich (1974) (quoting Kissel, 465 United States v NW2d 218 US (1910). 601, 608; 124; 54 L 1168 31 S Ct Ed gist conspiracy "The of the offense of lies agreement per- between two or more unlawful sons.” Establishing conspiracy Atley 311.10 at requires specific intent to evidence of combine accomplish illegal objective. Atley an at others to 310.

A First, the intent to combine with others for an 8 ignore requirement and create a The dissent asks us to the intent stringent by holding detrimental standard that the intent and the less established defendant knew that the effect cocaine this case are because therefore, purchaser defendant in was from reject the effect to occur in We must tended a detrimental knowledge sufficient in this case to dissent’s conclusion that the was support finding intent. 9 proce attempts to its on the case’s The dissent base conclusion argues disposition. that the issue here is whether a dural warrant shall warrant was The dissent issue, and the factors to consider are "whether the '(1) probable supported sufficient cause to believe that (2) it; perpetrated; defendant has committed an offense has been (3) ” magistrate Post at 497. has to act the case.’ regardless jurisdic fails to realize that of when But the dissent challenged, the Strassheim test must be met. tion Asta, 590, 611; (1953); People v 337 Mich NW2d See also Smith, v 296 Mich NW 443 Mich 476 Opinion the Court purpose party if

unlawful must exist. Even one pursue purpose, intends to an unlawful combine " prove conspiracy, ... it '[t]o the crime of must proven including intent, further be knowledge, possessed by more than one indi vidual since there can be no without a ” more[11]persons.’ People combination of two or App Sutherlin, 494, 500; 116 Mich 323 NW2d 456 added).12 (1982) (emphasis Atley, In this Court held that there was insuffi- support convicting cient evidence to the defendant illegal conspiracy to deliver an substance be- cause there was insufficient evidence that two or parties agreed marijuana. Atley, more along to sell the defendants,

with other two was arrested for possession pounds marijuana. of 127 of raw He charged conspiracy to sell a narcotic drug. prosecutor alleged The that the defendants going marijuana were to harvest a field in Kansas marijuana and sell the

Regarding judge evidence, the trial ex- plained: bridging

"I have some difficulty gap be- being crop tween delivery hired harvest a [to] person expressed ato who has an that intention it, going dry any he was it and sell but without agreement any participation conversation as to 11 agreement particular prosecuted An to commit a crime cannot be conspiracy alleged conspirators as a where the number of do not persons logically necessary exceed the minimum number of plete to com People Hamp, App 92; the substantive offense. v 110 Mich 312 (1981). Conspiracy 175 NW2d those crimes. In (1976), to deliver controlled substances is one of People Puig, 228, 232; v 85 Misc 2d 378 NYS2d 925 explained agreement solely the court "an between seller and buyer conspiracy to transfer narcotics is not sufficient to establish sale, necessarily commit the co-operation as consummated crime involved the persons Potwora, (People of the two v 44 AD2d 207 [354 (1974)]).” NYS2d 492 12 310; Laura, People Atley, supra People See also v at v Di 259 260; Mich 243 NW 49 People v Blume 483 Opinion op the Court sale, being the actual sufficient to establish a conspiracy, agreement which is an or an under- standing to make a sale.” at [Id. 313.] explained This Court the evidence was not sustain[13] "strong enough to the conviction for conspiracy marijuana.” to sell Id. "prior agreement” combination and to har- plus

vest testimony Atley defendant in- marijuana tended to sell the lish in other directly do not estab- logic the defendant any and Eaton or person agreed the marijuana. to sell There was, fact, testimony agreed no . . . that Eaton with defendant to sell the marijuana. . . . From the acquisition established fact of pounds marijuana, we can infer an intent

sell, but that is as far as inference take us. inference,” Beller, It is not "a [People fair v 464; (1940)]; Sobczak, Mich NW (1955), 344 Mich NW2d to infer the ultimate fact of to sell from the fact of acquisition. joint The ultimate fact of intent to sell inferred, might agreement be but not to sell. What they actually payment intended do insofar as concerned, was or insofar as where marijuana elsewhere, the sold, was is on this record whether conjecture.

a matter of at [Id. 314.]

B may A defendant become a member of an al " existing ready conspiracy 'cooperates if he know- " 13 Appeals jury The Court of held that a could infer the existence agreement necessary charge prior preparation of the to the from the planning engaged parties disregard the the denials of alleged coconspirators. may designed defendant’s While it have been only marijuana, prior defendant would sell the the combination agreement proceeds by reasonably to receive those involved was certainly points charged established to the existence of the ” conspiracy.’ Id. at 313. Mich 476 484 443 op Opinion the Court object conspiracy ingly further the Huey, 120, 125; 75 345 Mich v added). (1956) (emphasis The "knowl- NW2d only edge” part "[w]ith- of crime because is a the knowledge, exist. United the the intent cannot out 204; S 85 L Ed [311 205; 61 Ct v Falcone US States (1940)].” States, 319 v United Direct Sales Co 1265; 87 L Ed 1674 703, 63 S Ct US Mere proposes

knowledge unlawful that someone enough in a is not to find involvement alone action conspiracy, knowledge having "Those no however. conspirators, conspiracy not United the are of 33, L Hirsch, [25 US Ed States (1879)]; Weniger States, 692, 47 F2d v United (1931)]; fur- and one who without more [CA guilty supplies not to an illicit distiller is of nishes though may conspiracy fur- sale have even his conspiracy object to which the of a thered supplier party of had but which distiller no knowledge.” Falcone at 210-211. support cites Direct Sales to dissent

proposition become involved in that defendant can through informed or interested cooperation. on But dissent relies one short opinion holding. of so In Direct sentence Supreme recog- Sales, Court also the United States "[t]here nized that be circumstances which knowledge yet clear, the further the evidence step required finding cannot be intent Concededly, every not instance of sale of taken. opiates, goods, as restricted harmful are which buyer intends to use them the seller knows charge unlawfully, support conspiracy.” will at 712. Id. circumstances, however, such as in

There are appropriate. Sales, that For Direct example, if [distri- "the evidence discloses such a system, working prolonged cooperation bution] Blume op Opinion the Court physician’s purpose supply awith unlawful to him enterprise, with his stock for his trade illicit legal finding sup- there is no plier obstacle that only acquiesces, joins not knows and but both accomplish- mind hand with him to make its possible.” ment Id. at 713. It under those Supreme circumstances the United States Court said there was "informed and interested cooperation, instigation stimulation, [of the con- spiracy] [a]nd there is also a 'stake in the venture’ . . . .” Id. Supreme provided

The United States Court also guidance additional about what amount of evi- required by explaining dence is Falcone: this, That merely decision comes down does party by one aiding not become a conspiracy it, abetting through supplies of sales otherwise, unless he of conspiracy; knows of knowledge the inference such cannot be drawn merely knowledge from buyer will use the goods at illegally. [Id. 709.] Clearly, prosecutor present must evi- more knowledge buyer’s than dence the seller’s of the proposed illegal purpose. For exist, intent conspiracy, defendant must know of the must objective conspiracy, know the and must participate cooperatively intend objective. to further that " intent, '[T]o establish the the evidence knowledge equivocal clear, must be not charges conspiracy . . . because are not be to upon piling made out inference Atley quoting inference ....’” at Direct Co, Sales supra.14_ 314-316, Atley This Court stated at that a inference, provided established circumstantial evidence or an " relevancy

the evidence and 'within circumstances are safe bounds of and be such as to warrant fair inference of the ultimate facts.’ Mich op Opinion the Court

C pros- dispute, jurisdictional the of the Because to combine intent an establish also must ecutor possessing purpose of the unlawful for with others the possessing deliver intent to the with or cocaine cocaine assertion question The "threshold jurisdiction is whether state’s of the permit showing the court sufficient there is a produce a intended the defendant conclude detrimental at 510. Post the forum state.” effect (CA 5, Baker, F2d v States In United jurisdic- 1980), applied extraterritorial court the illegal involving conspiracy and case to a tion possession But narcotics. to distribute intent with specifically if "it is clear held that court the Baker that the the within” would occur intended distribution punish attempting defen- the may . .” "jurisdiction . . maintained dant, then at 139. Id. charged person

This a not surrender will state the defendant state unless in another a crime with the clearly intent that the a crime with committed demanding Deur, In state.15 in the occur crime Although ble. proof, (Emphasis which Deur creating provides: at the added.)” 444-446, interpreting agreement an inference Id. at 311, does not upon quoting People an inference MCL have to be established 780.3a; clearly Beller, MSA 28.1285(3-1/2), is supra impermissi- by direct at 469. surrender, demand of governor on this state also of state, any person authority any in this other executive the provided in charged in the manner such other state state section state, state, committing in a third in this an act 3 with resulting intentionally in the state whose in a crime demand, provisions making authority executive cases, apply to shall such inconsistent act not otherwise of this even the commission time of though that state at the was not in the accused therefrom, crime, has not fled (e) (d) of section requirements in subdivisions contained apply to such cases. shall not 3 of this act Opinion of the Court supra at this Court refused to surrender any because he "did not commit act in defendant Michigan intentionally resulting State charged the Maryland.”16 crime he is which the State of approve Thus, this Court should not person exercise over who committed crime outside when this prove person state cannot intended the crime to occur in state. this

IV thorough testimony A of review fails to support exercising disclose evidence sufficient to prosecutor over this defendant.17 The present did not evidence that defendant18 acted with the intent to have a effect detrimental Michigan. Conversely, defense counsel introduced testimony negated that the existence of such in- prosecutor Similarly, present tent. did not coop- sufficient evidence that defendant knew of or knowingly objectives erated conspiracy. to further of a This case involves defendant’s sale of cocaine to Hoyt. Randy Hoyt intending Florida, traveled purchase cocaine other from someone than defen- only prior dant,19 and defendant’s contact with 16 act, only Not must the find an Court intentional but Court must find the intention to commit an in a act that would result crime demanding in the state. assumption We review the court’s district of de (CA Hill, 9, novo .... States 719 F2d [United 1983).] trial, alleged only this it Because case did not reach is purposes determining jurisdic if defendant committed a crime. For premise appropriate, tion over we start defendant must with the Hoyt. that defendant made the initial sale of cocaine to There is support assumption. testimony to 19During jurisdic- hearing motion on the to dismiss for lack Mich Opinion the Court Although through gym.20 defendant Hoyt 5, 1988, only tion, witnesses place on took October which Hoyt’s Regarding Mr. Palenick. testify and Officer were defendant Florida, testified: the officer when he traveled intentions you down Hoyt] who he went tell [D]id [Mr. [Prosecutor]: initially to meet? there [Florida] Yes, initially to make went down that he he advised [Officer]: subject Little Mike. as that he described contact with a respect you to his And what did he tell [Prosecutor]: purchasing cocaine intention of Mike and the for Little search from him? Little Mike. not able to locate He was [Officer]: you instead? tell he did What did he [Prosecutor]: restaurant, able to after which he was He went to [Officer]: subject. another make contact with subject? you knew this other tell how he Did he [Prosecutor]: with him at has worked out He said that he [Officer]: make a contact with gym he could also was aware that and he individual, product he needed. possibly to obtain a this transcript continues: you the name of Mr. meet a man Did Counsel]: [Defense Hoyt in Florida? Well, I and he Florida where was at he came to .[Defendant]: know, is, you how I met That in he met me there. walked him. Alfred through I with named a friend that work I him met at J. W. House of Rock. Fricke Hoyt any you to call at Did have occasion [Defense Counsel]: Michigan? Hoyt in was located time when No. [Defendant]: any you know have reason to Would Counsel]: [Defense you? calling [Hoyt] if did call from he he would be where No, sir. [Defendant]: any you in advance of have idea Did [Defense Counsel]: him, coming running Florida? he was into that idea, maybe year him for I had not seen No [Defendant]: that. before Opinion Court Hoyt Hoyt knew that was from and that eventually Michigan, would return to defendant only delivery was involved the initial of cocaine Hoyt.21 completed transaction Flor- Now, you plan Hoyt did ever [Defense Counsel]: make a up Michigan?

to come here to No. [Defendant]: you Hoyt How did come see Mr. [Prosecutor]: year? Whale’s Rib Restaurant in June of this year, just sitting eating This I was there [Defendant]: he was, know, you walked in both That is how started he and we muscle shirt were body talking body building. builders and we started about speaking. we say you many years You first that met him how [Prosecutor]: ago? exactly I am not sure. Between and three [Defendant]: two years ago him. I met many you How times have met him? [Prosecutor]: Met him? [Defendant]: Face-to-face. [Prosecutor]: Three to four times. [Defendant]: June, Other than this time in when was the [Prosecutor]: that, long last time it before how had been? Probably maybe years prior, about two before [Defendant]: that, that is all. mostly You saw him ’86 and ’85 and not [Prosecutor]: again until June of ’88? Yes. [Defendant]: point recognized you immediately At that who [Prosecutor]: he was? Yes. [Defendant]: you agree you Did meet him at were all as at [Prosecutor]: you again day, Whale’s Restaurant? Rib Did meet the next or . . . No. [Defendant]: only supporting It must be noted that the fact evidence this is the Palenick, hearsay testimony Hoyt of Officer who testified told purchased him that he from the cocaine defendant. The officer ad mits, however, possibility that there is no evidence "contradict Hoyt quantity that Mr. somewhere left Florida with a it cocaine and unloaded along way picked up some he more before came Michigan?” possibility light back to That feasible in the officer’s testimony days Hoyt told he defendant would be in Florida several returning Michigan. before to Mich Opinion the Court delivery that was the fact

ida as evidenced complete aspects sale were and the financial concluded.22

Although may from the amount infer we pos- purchased buyer to intended that cocaine supra, Atley, somewhere, cocaine or sell the sess prosecution’s only Palenick, witness, Officer Hoyt testify that told defendant unable to Michigan.23 drugs would be distributed that Hoyt testify could have dis- The officer did posed agree- any manner and no of the cocaine in to For that be breached.24 ment would have been testimony on of Officer was introduced cross-examination This Palenick. assume, there So there isn’t reason to Counsel]: [.Defense

there, money coming? more that he had referring are to? You [Officer]: There is no reason to The Defendant. Counsel]: [Defense Hoyt . . . assume money drugs? . . . Still owes him [Officer]: Yes. Counsel]: [Defense No, not. I would think [Officer]: only testimony regarding came on direct exami distribution nation. you Randy Hoyt whether or not Did indicate [Prosecutor]: explained was to be to the Defendant that the cocaine

he had delivered and distributed Michigan? Hoyt going that he was I recall if Mr. advised don’t [Officer]: distributing Michigan. lived in He did advise that he to be person splitting Michigan it with when he he had be and he another Michigan. [Emphasis got back added.] Thus, erroneously Hoyt judge that defendant the district stated Hoyt Randy for the the sale of cocaine Defendant "did discuss purpose delivered, . transporting it sold . . .” to be judge’s supporting testimony statement. no on be record There is A there is fact. any judge’s finding may Because for want of evidence. overruled evidence, finding of no we cannot affirm the district court’s cross-examination defense counsel asked: On agree- contrary any . . . it would Counsel]:

[Defense Opinion the Court agreement true, there must not have been an regarding Hoyt what would do with the cocaine.

Also relevant is that the defendant did not have beyond in an interest the cocaine the initial sale. Hoyt’s Defendant was not concerned with use of cocaine, the and was not concerned with where Hoyt importantly, took the cocaine. More defen- go dant did not intend that the cocaine to Michi- gan, drugs and did not intend that the be sold Michigan.25 knowledge Hoyt Mere that would re- Michigan completing turn to sometime after sup- insufficient transaction with defendant port finding specifically that defendant intended to detrimental effect in this state.26 have a Although may drawn, an inference surrounding knowledge cir- some cases and the support finding cumstances be sufficient to supra, intent, Sales, Direct dissent’s conclu- principle that inference is sion27here violates purchaser Hoyt Hoyt ment that and had with his if had taken it ocean, dumped speak? it into the so to yes, possible. . . . it would be [Officer]: point any My is it would not have violated [Defense Counsel]: agreements person got that he had with the that he it from? I Not that know of. [Officer]: Although Hoyt the officer testified that the defendant "knew” was Michigan Hoyt eventually from return to defendant made an distributed. The officer and that he "knew” that would Michigan, testify that the officer was unable to or affirm agreement regarding where the cocaine would be agreement made it there no clear that was Hoyt drugs defendant and that the would be taken to and between Michigan. sold in involving every This does not mean that in case the distribution jurisdiction. only of cocaine the court is unable to exercise It means present prosecutor failed to evidence sufficient to establish that the Sales, supra. requisite Direct intent this case. See defendant, prosecutor closing argument The admitted in his that most, Michigan. only "knew” that the cocaine would be taken to at Nonetheless, regarding testimony whether the officer’s is inconsistent Hoyt taking knew was the cocaine back to defendant Hoyt that knew that later The dissent concludes defendant and, thus, possess that intended to and sell the cocaine 443 Mich Opinion of the Court support upon inference to not conspiracy to be created supra. charge. Co, Sales Direct upon the dissent built includes inference inference going Hoyt was that defendant knew an inference Hoyt drugs, had a an inference that to sell the plan drugs, plan an inference to sell conspir- person as to create a involved another so plan Hoyt’s acy, an inference drugs Michigan, infer- and an was to sell the delivery defendant, the mere ence that cocaine to knowledge Hoyt Hoyt Michigan, cooperated knowingly from knew of and of mind. with these inferred states prosecutor evidence But the failed to introduce agreed, Hoyt discussed, or even defendant in Michi- that gan.28 the cocaine would be distributed prosecutor also failed to introduce evi- The Hoyt dence that defendant was aware that was conspiracy.29 in There no involved is evidence provided cooperation Hoyt’s in defendant plan. informed and interested Therefore, may prosecute conspiracy. this state Blume for The support exercising necessary to extrater- dissent confuses ritorial evidence jurisdiction necessary support a with the evidence convic- conspiracy. tion for Post at 506. The dissent relies on discussions Hoyt regarding potential defendant and future sales of between contributing conspir- facts to the cocaine to establish the existence of acy. admitted that however, inappropriate, This reliance is because the officer "[tjhere any according was not firm commitment to Mr. somebody coming Hoyt. other drop got up I here for some He said that have business; out, I him if at that time we can work it will have maybe you pick up.” off two kilos close can him 28Although correctly agreement the dissent states that a formal shown, only prosecution case does not have witness this Furthermore, clearly negated dissent agreement. the existence of an consistently repeats that defendant knew that the cocaine Michigan, Hoyt would be distributed but there is no evidence that Michigan, intended to distribute the cocaine in dant let alone that defen of such intention. knew 29It is true that the defendant does not have to know all the potential to know acy conspiracy, ramifications of the but the defendant does have conspir conspiracy objective there and the of that is a "cooperates knowingly before this Court can hold that he object People Huey, supra conspiracy.” further the The at 125. conclusion, therefore, principles is with the dissent’s inconsistent Opinion op the Court Hoyt plan. ques- that defendant knew had a It is Hoyt plan. tionable whether knew he had a There Hoyt is no evidence that defendant knew going to sell the cocaine reviewing Sales, Falcone,

After Deur, Direct Atley, Huey, only we can conclude that provide facts ing not do a sufficient basis for conclud- cooperated that defendant knew of or know- ingly conspiracy objectives.30 with a to further its

V reasoning conspiracy used discussion applies charge brought to the substantive under of law on which it relies. The dissent states that intent required, " although 'knowledge intent,’ and knowledge enough stopped right is the foundation of . . . mere illegal conspiracy objective, more, of a or its without is not prove . . intent . .” Post at 507. The dissent should have knowledge there because the defendant did not have conspiracy illegal objective; therefore, or its it is irrelevant and unnecessary to "examine the defendant’s conduct to determine provided cooperation, whether the defendant stimulation, 'informed and interested ” instigation.’ Post at 507-508. [or] ability not We do seek to limit the to exercise extraterritorial illegal drug types sale cases or in other of cases. The here, problem jurisdiction, which bars is that the defendant did not alone, Hoyt enough permit act but the involvement with was not intentions, transferring Hoyt’s were, they whatever to this defendant. Quite simply, aiding abetting neither nor can be made out here. This does not mean will never be obtained in unique example, such circumstances. For if someone stood blindfolded Arizona, Mexico, Utah, point connecting Colorado, at the and fired a machine New and turn, gun making degree while a 360 then person, in whatever state state should have defendant’s intent which the defendant murder a case, over defendant. In that addressing is sufficient under criminal laws mur here, But der. criminal law the defendant’s sale of cocaine is insufficient under regarding conspiracy aiding abetting. Defendant’s in did commit an act that intent was forced or Hoyt sell cocaine Florida. He not Florida, encourage encouraged the cocaine to leave did not Florida, engage in a to take the cocaine outside and did not Hoyt. with The facts here indicate continuous distribution network scheme, Hoyt’s regular a fill-in seller for about that defendant was which defendant tion is facts, jurisdic knowledge. had no Without additional certainly inappropriate. different if The outcome would be supplier, beyond Hoyt’s regular this one was involved defendant was transaction, conspiracy. Hoyt’s or had discussed Mich Boyle, J. aiding abetting theory. Consistent with supra, Strassheim, have in- the defendant must Michigan to occur tended a detrimental effect actually the effect must have occurred and Michigan jurisdic- can exercise before this Court out- over a defendant who aided and abetted tion Michigan. side the commission of a

One who aids and abets Michigan is not substantive crime that occurs Michigan. automatically subject to Defen trial have intended to aid and abet a crime dant must in Michigan. knowledge enough Mere is not jurisdiction.31 exercise

VI Because there is an insufficient factual basis to assert extraterritorial over this defen- Appeals dant, decision, we reverse the Court of and reinstate the district court’s dismissal of the charges. JJ., concurred

Levin, Brickley, Griffin, Cavanagh, C.J. (dissenting). principle issue that Boyle, majority opinions minority divides the is jurisdictional show, whether the state must as a drugs fact, that the defendant intended the he sold in Florida to be distributed in Because consequence the harmful that defendant intended actually posses- and that sion of the occurred in

drugs Michigan, we would hold that 31Interestingly, drugs the record is devoid of evidence that actually Michigan, directly pros were sold in which confronts "anybody intentionally drugs ecutor’s statement sends here, Michigan, just having drugs have them sold as liable for bring in our State as those that them . . . .” them here and those that sell People v Blume Dissenting by Opinion Boyle, J. may Michigan defendant be tried a court conspiracy possess possession to and for the Michigan aiding abetting cocaine in on an theory, alleged agreement with, where the and aid Michigan to, the resident occurred in Florida. We Appeals, would affirm the decision of the Court of complaint, reinstate the a and remand this case for preliminary examination.

I Defendant Michael Blume is a Florida resident charged conspir- in a two-count information with acy possess to deliver or with intent to deliver grams cocaine,1 more than 650 and the manu- possession intent facture or with to manufacture grams or to deliver more than 650 of cocaine aiding abetting charges theory.2 under an involving June, 1988, from stem Blume’s Florida to Randall Michigan.3 incident alleged sale of cocaine the State of

Hoyt, of the State of resident Hoyt was arrested State Police apartment after a search of his and business yielded approximately kilogram He one of cocaine. identity source, revealed the of his and a warrant was issued for Blume’s arrest._ has not been Florida or in deliver or Blume became a member of preexisting Michigan conspiracy Florida. As existed before deliver member of an ingly (citations A MCL MCL Contrary to further the does not 750.157a; 333.7401(2)(a)(i); omitted). possess to the charged Hoyt already existing conspiracy logically require between majority with intent MSA majority’s suggestion, object traveled with 28.354(1). MSA Defendant Hoyt recognizes, conspiracy by allegedly selling 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(i). Florida deliver, conspiracy. two and his persons "[a] charged deliver ante, Michigan partner purchase defendant if he . . possession for its prosecutor p .” narcotics 482, ’ ” Ante, ' cocaine to "cooperates completion. cocaine. It is n with intent conspiracy alleges pp defendant become a Hoyt in Hoyt 483-484 already know- this to to Mich Opinion Dissenting Boyle, in Florida and was ar-

Blume was arrested arraignment, Michigan. raigned the in After hearing evidentiary on his court held an district complaint quash motion to warrant jurisdiction.4 lack of charge,

Regarding conspiracy the court Michigan Hoyt that and another resident of found purchase agreed Hoyt Florida, that would travel to kilogram Michigan cocaine, to of and return to one with his friend. The court found divide the cocaine [a] that "the Defendant did have Randy Hoyt, discussion with they the sale of [and] that did discuss Randy Hoyt pur- for the cocaine pose Defendant transporting Michigan delivered, it to to be possessed sold, . . . .” addition, in

In the record reflects that his state- police investigators, Hoyt that a ment to indicated contemplated the later conversation with Blume purchase Michigan delivery in of more cocaine for Chicago, or Illinois. The record also indicates that prior acknowledged having had contacts Blume Hoyt, phone and that Blume admitted July August, Hoyt contact with instigated apparently by law enforce- conversation ment officers some time after the search warrant had been executed brought

Regarding count under substantive aiding abetting theory, court an district found cocaine, Hoyt possession Mr. had that he it, it, intended to deliver sell that he obtained Blume, cocaine in Florida from Mr. that Mr. knowing going it

Blume sold to him that he was Michigan it. . transport it to and sell . ._ Hoyt’s The content of statements to law enforcement officers was through testimony admitted him. of the officer who had interviewed Boyle, Defendant, as I understand under the facts

them, having Hoyt Mr. co- did aid and assist purpose in the State of for the caine supplier, delivering it. I think that a one who another, supplies does aid and abet cocaine having possession of the controlled sub- person in deliver the intent to manufacture or stance with it. however, charges,

The court dismissed the did not concluded that because or encour- Michigan, and because no aid occur Michigan did not given Michigan, agement proceed. have ordered reinstate- The circuit court reversed and charges brought could be ment. It held that both in one the result of acts done they were because actually and produce that intended to state were The produce detrimental effects did deci- affirmed the circuit court’s Appeals Court of curiam, de- opinion per in an unpublished sion 129818) (Docket at 1. 15, 1992 No. January cided (1992). 441 Mich 880 appeal. granted We leave II the obscures evidence majority’s analysis the quash motion to the defendant’s the fact challenged magis- the only and warrant complaint such, it As of jurisdiction. trate’s determination the to determine here whether only necessary cause probable sufficient supported by warrant was "(1) perpe- has been an offense to believe (3) (2) it; the trated; defendant has committed in the case.”5 to act has magistrate (1982). Franklin, 393, 396; App 117 Mich 323 NW2d 767.3; MCL MSA 28.943. See also Mich by Boyle, establishing Defendant bears the burden of ground quashing complaint and warrant.6 questions presented

Thus, while the initial are power Legislature proscribe conduct that occurs outside its borders the intent of Legislature give aiding abetting effect, statutes extraterritorial inquiry magistrate prop- ultimate erly is whether the case, determined to act in the which in turn rests on whether the defendant produce intended to a detrimental effect in Michi- gan. grant

On review of the or denial of a motion to quash, weigh only we do not the evidence but any support determine whether there is evidence ing charge. challenge Where the is to the magistrate’s jurisdiction only act, we review any sup determine whether there is evidence to port magistrate’s probable determination that cause existed to believe the defendant intended to produce Michigan. Disputed a detrimental effect in by properly issues of fact are to be resolved instructed jury.7 767.74; 28.1014, provides See MCL MSA which motion "[n]o quash indictment, by any to the or . . . the shall be received court unless party offering plea prove affidavit, such shall the truth thereof States, Gridley some other sworn evidence.” See also v United (CA 6, 1930), 44 F2d 716 cert den 283 US 827 quash While it is true that the statute refers to motions to an " indictment, sentment, tion thereof.” MCL '[ijndictment’ indictment, information, pre- means an warrant, complaint, any other formal written accusa- and, contrary appears, any unless a intention means count 28.843(d). 761.1(d); MSA 7 Webb, (1987). People App 462; v 163 Mich 415 9 NW2d See also 554, (1973) Bighum, 559; Commonwealth v ("Jurisdiction 452 Pa 307 A2d 255 legal normally is a issue and therefore is not a concern However, jury. infrequent for the in those cases where depends upon disputed facts, prov the resolution of it is within the instructions”). jury proper ince of the to resolve the issue under Indeed, 280; Daily, even the Court Strassheim v 221 US 31 S Ct (1911), recognized 55 L Ed 735 disputed the resolution of jury jury

facts was for the when it noted that if the believed that the 499 Boyle,-

III power Legislature’s Although of discussion the proscribe outside its borders to frequently conduct occurs arena, in the international law

occurs legislative jurisdiction are the same of the theories applied the United States whether between sovereign sovereign the or between other nations s.8 state legislature power the the to enact has Unless a proscribe con- seeks extraterritorial statute that duct, it for acts commit- not enforce state territory. legislature its Whether ted outside possesses recog- power depends on various power proscribe principles on which the nized is conduct based.9 extraterritorial agree on nor courts commentators While neither assigned principles to the number or names juris- legislative governing of criminal the exercise recognized for exer- diction,10 often bases the most cise are: of, Michigan complained acts would committed the defendant had jury Similarly, punishing if in this case

justified the defendant. in that Blume knew that returning Michigan Hoyt would be believes another, knowledge, split armed with that the cocaine with to supplied detrimental effect split Hoyt, the intent to create to be then cocaine Michigan, the further of co- here distribution caine, be shown. would quantum among regarding states a conflict various We also note prove jurisdiction. proof necessary Comment note— See anno: necessity proving criminal or territorial venue doubt, parties beyond have 67 ALR3d 988. reasonable offense issue, argued await thus its resolution must nor briefed this neither presented. clearly case in which issue another 8Rotenberg, legislative jurisdiction and the state Extraterritorial (1960). law, 763, Tex L R 767-768 38 criminal 9 (CA 1982), 255, 1, Smith, F2d cert den v United States (CA States, 5, (1983); v 375 F2d Rivard United US 1110 States, 1967), 389 US 884 Giroleau United cert den sub nom Smith, See, e.g., supra (recognizing six bases: territo n 9 at 257 objective rial, universal, personality, national, passive protective, Rivard, territorial); (recognizing and supra ns five at 885 and 5-9 n national, passive per- territorial, universality, protective, bases: 500 Mich 476 Dissenting Opinion Boyle, J. (1) territorial, jurisdiction is based on where[] (2) place

the tional, committed; where the offense is na- jurisdiction is on based the nation- where[ ] (3) ality offender; protective, of the juris- where[] diction is based on whether the national interest is (4) universal, injured; physical which amounts to (5) offender; custody passive of the and personality, jurisdiction is or nationality based where[ ] national character of the victim. States v [United Smith, (CA 255, 1, 680 F2d 257 1982).] law, At common criminal was based primarily principle. on the territorial Under this (or only view, because "each crime has one situs locus) place only jurisdict . . . of the situs has 1 physical Thus, ion.”1 if the situs is within the may subject perpe state, borders the state prosecution.12 trator to sonality); George, application penal legislation, Extraterritorial 609, (1966) (recognizing territorial, LMich R 613-614 six bases: float ing ity interest, territory, protected nationality offender, of the national victim, Perkins, universality); principle The territorial law, (1971) Hastings 1155, in criminal (recogniz L J 1155 and n 1 ing Rotenberg, territorial, Roman, injured forum, four cosmopolitan); bases: 767, supra 17, citing n 8 respect at n Jurisdiction with crime, (1935) Supp 435, (recognizing Am J Int’l L five bases: territorial, national, protective, universal, passive personality); comment, murder, felony Jurisdiction over interstate 50 U Chi 1431, (1983) (recognizing LR territorial, 1433-1439 three bases: common law or relation). significant activity, integral (2d Scott, ed), 2.9(a), & p LaFave Criminal Law 129. § 12However, restricting jurisdiction exclusively to that based on the principle, territorial crime for leads to fictions intended fix jurisdiction the location of a jurisdictional purposes. Berge, Criminal and the (1931). principle, territorial example, 30 Mich LR 243-244 For presence courts have created the doctrine of constructive in order to punish allow a state to an offender not located within the state when the offender set in motion the events which culminated in a harm in prosecuting the constructive 984 state. Id. The classic formulation of the doctrine of presence State, Simpson found 92 Ga 17 SE affirming In the conviction of a defendant who had been

standing in the State of South Carolina at the time he shot at a person Georgia, Georgia Supreme Court stated: course, presence Of of the accused within this State is State;

essential to make his act one which is done in this but Boyle, pinpointing crime, As an the situs aid "objec principle into courts divided the territorial objective "subjective” the Under tive” and bases.13 principle, "include[s] state the situs the territorial including rights assailed, the have been whose integrity’ safety, 'political 'life, and and the state’s ”14 subjects.’ property "life, Thus, where the of its safety property” are en of a state’s citizens Legislature may proscribe dangered, conduct the physical the borders. that occurs outside state’s prin Conversely, subjective the territorial under legislative jurisdic ciple, the the situs of crime for purposes the is "the state in which offender tional time crime is committed located at offender [because] . . . it is that state to which the governing Thus, an in his where looks conduct.”15 produces effects detrimental actor’s conduct presence . . . be constructive. need not be actual. It So, criminally fires a if a the State of South Carolina man in Georgia, regards accompa- as him into the State of the law ball it, up point ball, being represented by nying where this State. He started to the as it . . act of the accused did take effect strikes. . [T]he across the with his leaden messen- river up ger, operating it it when ceased to the moment was sense, move, therefore, legal in a after the ball crossed and was Georgia. stopped, up at State to the moment it [Id. line 43, 46; quoted Berge, supra at 243-244.] States, 347, Holmes, Hyde dissenting in 225 US v United Justice against 384; reasoning resulting 793; (1912), Ct Ed 1114 cautioned the circular 32 S 56 L presence fiction. He stated: from constructive language presence speak use the is to To of constructive fiction, precise analysis. When man is said to hinder so consequences constructively present of an act where the be felt, special for some it is meant done elsewhere are purpose if as he have been treated he he be treated would will although quoted present, he not. at had been [Id. Berge, supra at 244.] 13Rotenberg, supra 769. at n crime, Id., Wharton, quoting L R Extra-territorial Southern (1878). 699-700 Id., Stimson, citing Laws Conflict Criminal Mich Boyle, J. physi state,

another the state where the actor was cally located at the time of his conduct would be proscribe principles able to the conduct. The are mutually Indeed, not exclusive. more than one principle may applicable given to a set of facts.16 acknowledges, majority recog-

As the we have exceptions general against nized to the rule extra- application popula- territorial of state statutes "as progressed technology tions and and travel be- among tween countries and the states increased to everyday ap- an . . . .”17 occurrence We have proved objective principle territorial of crimi- jurisdiction,18 recognized nal and have that Michi- gan may give extraterritorial effect to its criminal , laws where the acts committed outside the state sought punish them were intended to have

a detrimental effect in our In state. Deur v Ne- waygo (1984), Sheriff, 420 Mich 362 NW2d 698 plaintiff, Michigan a resident who owned a rig braking tractor-trailer that lost control and fatally injured persons Maryland, three in was by Maryland grand jury manslaugh- indicted a for by plaintiff ter motor vehicle. The was arrested in Michigan, Maryland. but resisted extradition to alleged plaintiff While the indictment 16 (CA King, 833, 9, Id. at 768. See also United States v 552 F2d 851 1976), (1977) ("[C]ourts recognized cert den 430 US 966 have concept territorial is neither exclusive nor full jurisdic and powers accurate characterization of the of states to exercise beyond geographical boundaries”); tion the confines of their Wheat v State, (Alas 1987) ("The App, 734 P2d 1008 issue is now well- in rely, settled the modern view that states without constitu impediment, grounds tional for on a number of non-territorial as a basis asserting occurring criminal over acts outside their borders”), (3d citing Boyce, ed), pp 38-45; Perkins & Criminal Law Torcia, Wharton, (12th ed), Criminal Law 14.§ Rental, Ryder Inc, 406, 434; Sexton v Truck 413 Mich 320 NW2d (1982). Sheriff, Newaygo 440, 446-447; Deur v 420 Mich 362 NW2d 698 Boyle, J. adopted knowingly’ 'intentionally and "had poor policy con- which maintenance enforced a Maryland statute accident[,]”19the to the tributed proscribed driving, operation, negligent grossly Maryland short, In vehicle. a motor control of sought penal give to a effect "to extraterritorial regulate seeking con- unintentional statute Supreme United States that the We noted duct.”20 in Strassheim the issue had addressed Court (1911): Daily, 558; 55 L Ed 280; 31 S Ct 221 US indicted Strassheim, had been the accused In obtaining money also for Michigan bribery and accused, pretenses. The the state false from relating to the Michigan act Daily, did not on habeas reversing an order charged In crimes. Holmes, writing discharging Daily, Justice corpus Court, stated, pp 284-285: for the find the evidence jury should believe "If a Armstrong to led the acts that Daily did Control, trust, the Board deceived betray his State, by the payment by fraud induced warrant world would usage of the civilized him, had although he never punishing after the fraud until foot in the State set jurisdiction, but outside a complete. Acts done detrimental producing produce intended it, punishing justify State within effects at the present if he had been the harm as cause of effect, him getting succeed if State should added.)[21] (Emphasis power.” its within 19Id. at 443. added.) (Emphasis 446. Id. at application in the the doctrine The most recent Id. at 446-447. Michigan bring allowing criminal Appeals in resulted

Court 28.582(1), against 750.350a; the non- charges pursuant MSA to MCL retaining in child in Colorado a child for father of custodial People Harvey, custody 174 Mich Michigan order. violation of Strassheim, Deur and the basis of App On 435 NW2d Mich Opinion by Dissenting Boyle, Michigan’s nonfugitive Because stat- extradition requires Michigan ute22 an act in that "intention- requesting ally extradition, allowed result[s] a crime” the state Maryland and because the statute prosecution grossly negligent conduct, plaintiff corpus was entitled to habeas relief. recognized objective Because we have territo- principle rial of criminal in a different agree majority Legis- context, we with the proscribe may lature our and conduct that occurs outside physical produce, borders that is intended to produces, actually detrimental effect Michigan.

IV Legislature The conclusion that has the authority to enact a statute with extraterritorial inquiry. effect does not end the The statute against only be enforced conduct that occurs out of Legislature’s give state if the extraterritorial question intent to the statute effect is clear.23 The statutes regard are silent with to their extraterri- application. pur- torial We therefore look to their pose subject matter to determine the relevant legislative intent. Supreme The United States Court described the appropriate analysis as follows: question We have in this statutory case a Appeals the Court of to her mother held that the father’s failure to return his child should be considered a crime committed within the State of . . . The detrimental effects of defendant’s inten- girl Michigan tional retention of the in violation of the court’s here, custody Michigan, order occurred since it was the authority Michigan of a court that was thwarted and it right infringed upon. custodial [Id. of a resident that was at 61.] 28.1285(3-1/2). 780.3a; 22 MCL MSA 23Sexton, supra n 17 at 435. by Boyle, J. locus, spe- when not necessary

construction. cially gress defined, upon Con- depends purpose the of description nature of by the and as evinced the limitations upon the crime and territorial upon power jurisdiction government of the and under the of nations. Crimes punish to crime law against property, their like private individuals or assaults, murder, robbery, ar- larceny, burglary, kinds, son, all which and frauds of embezzlement community, good the peace order of affect the the territorial of course committed within must be prop- government of where it the of is to be punishment it. If them erly exercise outside of the to those committed extended strict include Con- it is natural jurisdiction, territorial statute, failure to do so gress say so in the Congress purpose in this negative the will . . regard. . interpretation should not rule of But the same are, which as a statutes applied

be criminal locality for class, dependent on their logically not enacted jurisdiction, but are Government’s the because to defend right of the of the Government obstruction, perpe- against or fraud wherever itself trated, citizens, its if committed own especially only agents. offenses can Some such officers jurisdiction within the territorial committed required to local acts because Government limit such that them. are constitute Others strictly territorial locus their would be scope and useful- greatly to curtail large immu- open a and leave statute ness on citizens easily committed nity for frauds as home. as at foreign countries high seas and the In cases, it thought neces- Congress has not such provision in law specific make sary to foreign coun- high include seas locus shall nature tries, from the it to be inferred but allows Bowman, US States of the offense. [United (1922).] L 94, 97-98; 43 S 67 Ed 149 Ct to determine of criminal statutes Construction not been limited has application extraterritorial Mich Dissenting Opinion by Boyle, proscribing construction of statutes fraud or ob- example, struction. For applied the federal courts have involving conspiracy this method cases illegal possession with intent to distribute narcotics,24 and to kill a member of Congress aiding abetting killing and of a Congress.25 However, member of this Court has Legislature’s power held that to do so is lim- ited to have, intentional acts that are intended to actually have, and that do a detrimental effect within the state. When detrimental effects are actually may punish occur, intended and the state present the actor as if he had been the time the acts were in the state at performed.26 conspiracy We conclude that the nature of both aiding abetting to commit an offense and the commission of an offense is such that inclusion language making specifically applicable of them conduct that occurred outside the state’s borders is unnecessary. conspiracy Moreover, neither nor aid- ing abetting logically require that the conduct agreement that constitutes the or the aid be com- Michigan’s physical mitted within borders.

A conspiracy The textbook definition of is a mutual agreement understanding, express implied, or 841(a)(1); Baker, 21 USC 21 USC United States v 609 F2d (CA 1980). 5, 351(a); (CA Layton, USC United States v 855 F2d 1388 1988), Layton, defendant, cert den 489 US 1046 In a People’s Temple, charged member death of in connection with the Congressman Ryan airstrip Leo at the Port Kaituma in the Republic subject Guyana. argued The defendant the court lacked alleged matter because the acts occurred outside disagreed the United States. The court and held that the district "properly subject court had exercised matter over each count in the indictment.” 855 F2d 1394. majority’s specific statement that defendant must have a simply misreading Deur, supra. intent to act is Blume Boyle, persons between two or more to commit a criminal accomplish legal act unlawful act or means. conspiracy

An overt act in furtherance of the is unnecessary27 complete is when because the crime agreement say However, the the crime is is reached. agreement

complete when the agreement reached does not mean that occur within must The crime of parties engaged while the are in the continues enterprise. words, unlawful In other it exists until arrest, abandonment, or success.28 conspiracy requires

The crime of a dual intent: others, [an] an "intent intent combine accomplish illegal objective.”29 in- to tent Because be inferred from evidence of the circum- " parties, stances, acts, proof '[d]irect and conduct of the agreement required, nor is it of an is not ”30 agreement proven.’ necessary that a formal "knowledge Furthermore, while is the foundation knowledge conspiracy intent,” of its and mere of a illegal enough objective, more, without is not to prove may intent,31 we examine the defendant’s pro- to the defendant conduct determine whether 27 government require The federal and some other states that an conspiracy performed their overt act in furtherance of the physical be within See, e.g., jurisdiction. confer United borders order 1975). (CA Winter, 975, 5, However, States v 509 F2d 982 if we were Michigan require that an overt act occurred in before to could designed punish conspiracy to have a detrimental effect in the Michigan, requirement that be we "would have the anomalous more necessary of shown for than is for conviction the crime.” 1979). 210, (CA Williams, 5, United States v 589 F2d 213 28 Scott, 6.5(e), p supra, n 11 555. See LaFave & § 29 (1982). Carter, 558, 568; People v 415 Mich 330 NW2d 314 30 Id., 311; quoting People Atley, 465 392 Mich 220 NW2d 31 States, 703, 711-712; 63 Direct Sales Co v United 319 US S Ct (CA Falcone, 1265; (1943); L Ed States v 109 F2d 579 87 1674 United 2, 1940), 204; (1940); Atley, n aff’d 311 US 61 S Ct 85 L Ed 128 supra at 310. proposition majority Falcone for the The cites Direct Sales and Mich Boyle, cooperation, stimu-

vided "informed and interested instigation.”32 lation, [or] agreement is a criminal act that The to commit punished conspiracy gist is of the offense of "special danger society presented of the because by activity.”33 group opposed to individual as the likelihood "Concerted action both increases successfully at- object that tained and decreases the viduals involved will the criminal will be probability that the indi- depart path their from pur- criminality. Group association for criminal often, possible poses normally, if makes not complex than those attainment of ends more accomplish.” [People v which one criminal could (1982), Carter, 558, 570; Mich NW2d ’ ” " ' clear, knowledge equivocal” "the evidence of must be not "' knowledge merely cannot be drawn that from What government stills and informed the inference of such ” Ante, knowledge goods illegally.’ p buyer 485. will use the Falcone, itself, majority, acknowledge that in fails to is argued knowledge conspiracy operate of the illicit cooperation in it could inferred from sales of be goods illegal sugar, yeast known not and cans—to themselves — during beverages prohibition. distillers of alcoholic The court disagreed. suppliers goods not the Falcone be held to be of the unrestricted could part conspiracy knowledge of the without operate participation in the illicit stills and active goal. Later, Sales, quantity proof in Direct the Court noted that the required was different where the Court scription ny’s quantity knowledge buyer’s product to show unlawful use of a Thus, product inherently harmful. permitted knowledge pre- an inference of of the misuse of a compa- narcotic to be drawn from the mail-order mail-order physician illegally sales and sales tactics to a who was respect dispensing the narcotics. In this the Court noted that "[a]ll illegal put of commerce ends. But all do not have articles inherently Nor, susceptibility illegal the same to harmful and use. token, embody very capacity, the same do all the same from their nature, fully.” giving buyer notice the will use unlaw- seller them added.) (Emphasis Id. at 710. possession kilogram Both further of a of cocaine and further distri- Thus, kilogram unlawful. bution of prescription sold, of cocaine are unlike sales of narcotic, quantity allegedly the nature of cocaine and the Hoyt’s allow the inference that Blume knew of intended unlaw- ful use. 32 Co, supra Direct n 31 at 713. Sales 33Carter, supra n 29 at 569-570. People v Blume by Boyle, States, 364 US quoting Callanan v United 593-594; 321; (1961).] 5 L 81 S Ct Ed 2d clearly Thus, the nature of the offense is not illegal agreement pursue situs based. The an goal Moreover, occur in need not danger posed group society increased tion, sion that statute reached in Florida with intended Michigan. associa- continuing quality, compel the conclu- and its Legislature intended applied agreement to an that was

consequences in contrary A result an intent ascribes Legislature protection the citizens and to abandon open large immunity for "leave [conspiracies] easily committed citizens” as Michigan.34 other states as

B reasoning applies The same substantive aiding abetting charge brought under aiding abetting theory theory. is used to illegal person to the action of ano connect one ther.35 proscribe or deeds It seeks to "all words support, encourage the com or incite which agreement in a of a crime.”36 Like the mission conspiracy, logically encouragement not the the aid or need Michigan, especially occur where encouraged commit crime that ted in is aided or will be purpose Michigan. Thus, the nature aiding abetting proscribing a crime the statute Legislature support in conclusion that our encouragement given apply it to to aid or tended physical borders. outside our pursuant Moreover, statute, who aids to the one respects if he treated in all as and abets is to be Bowman, 94, 98; 67 L Ed 149 States v 260 US S Ct United (1922). 35Carter, supra n 29 at 575. Palmer, 370, 378; 220 NW2d 393 Mich Mich by Dissenting Opinion Boyle, directly crime.37To the substantive

had committed prosecute Hoyt may say for the the state prosecute offense, Blume not but substantive for theory, abetting aiding an that offense under be, effect, Blume as if he to treat would directly an the crime. Such had not committed by required the statute. anomalous result is not V that an intentional act We reiterated Deur38 causing harmful conse- intended to cause and quences is within the reach in the forum state authority. indicates, the As Deur the state’s juris- question for assertion of the state’s threshold showing is a sufficient to is whether there diction permit the to conclude that defendant the court produce effect intended to detrimental separate question is from forum state. This of the crime can be made whether the elements preliminary examination. out at quash complaint motion to Defendant’s challenges magistrate’s conclusion warrant regarding jurisdiction the court to issue the ultimately try him for the offenses warrant and jurisdic- charged. noted, a court has As charged try tion a defendant with acts that 37Carter, supra n 29 at 576. objective principle territorial embraced in Deur "has been proof successfully that defendant’s actions asserted either or even if the defendant never where there was seeking prosecute], produced some effect within [forum [forum], performed any act within the coconspirator’s part conspiracy in that he was of a which some Baker, place supra took within n at 138. In activities other [the forum].” words, conspiracy designed if the to result in a crime in the forum, proof and if of an overt act committed in the forum there is coconspirator, the forum will have over the at least one conspiracy. doctrine, Winter, supra conspiracy "Under n 27 at 982. conspirators the forum state has over all involved any if criminal acts committed in furtherance of it and all by any conspirators.” within bounds overt act is committed George, its supra n 10 at 623. Boyle, J. geographical occurred outside the boundaries of cause, the state where the defendant intended to actually caused, in Michi- and gan. a detrimental effect weigh

Thus, on than the evi- review rather any dence, must whether there was we determine support issuing magistrate’s con- evidence to probable clusion that cause existed to believe magistrate possessed jurisdiction act. In to any presented words, other was evidence to show that the defendant intended to cause a detrimental Michigan presented any effect in and was evidence did, fact, in to show that a detrimental effect occur Michigan.39 in there We believe was.

By jurisdictional Deur, in contrast with the facts case, Strassheim, in the instant supports as in the record circuit that defen- court’s conclusion act, dant committed an intentional with an intent produce Michigan, in to detrimental effects which produce did such effects.40The detrimental investi- gating officer testified that defendant knew that Hoyt Michigan. in return lived and intended to to knowledge, coupled very least, At the defendant’s alleged delivery supports cocaine, an with his inference that Hoyt

the defendant intended that prosecutor prove, beyond majority have the a reason would magistrate act able doubt that this intent existed and would have the noted, disputed. disputed the trier of fact where intent is As as questions regarding jury are for a to of fact the defendant’s intent resolve. 228, 233; Puig, But see 85 Misc 2d 378 NYS2d (1976), possible where the court held that the sale of narcotics in New alleged Jersey York from an transfer of cocaine that occurred in New give jurisdiction York over the transfer. It did not reasoned proper the New court 20.20(2)(b), that, " under Criminal Procedure was designed prevent defining if 'the statute the offense particular of a effect in this state and the conduct consti occurrence tuting performed it the offense committed was with intent that would ” ” " effect’ means that have such effect herein.’ consequences upon '[Particular " materially impact of the conduct 'have a harmful community particu governmental processes welfare of a ” satisfy . . . .’ Id. sales in New York did not lar the Possible requirement particular of a effect. Mich Boyle, J. Michigan.

possess it is unlawful Because in cocaine Michigan, possess crimi- and because cocaine activity Michi- the citizens of is detrimental nal fairly in- gan, the defendant be said it can Michigan. result tended a detrimental acknowledges, the However, brief as defendant’s it knew that defendant further testified officer split Hoyt possible the cocaine would was with another upon person his return knowledge supports This the inference additional was distribu- effect intended detrimental that tion of the way, Hoyt. Either cocaine in in- effect detrimental an intended presented. Defendant’s the evidence ferred from purposes conclude, for the us to allows conduct produce asserting jurisdiction, that he intended Michigan. Moreover, officers effects detrimental apartment Hoyt’s and at his at found cocaine purchased Hoyt that he had told officers business. pre- Thus, Blume. evidence cocaine from resulted that Blume’s conduct to show sented Hoyt’s Michigan, possession detri- of cocaine support Therefore, the evidence to effect. mental magistrate’s jurisdiction to act of determination existed, it for the district and was error the case court to complaint

quash the warrant. introduced evidence the defendant Whether purpose negating of the re- the existence the of dispositive quired of the motion to is not intent majority’s quash. Thus, that it observation appear intended defendant knew or not that does Hoyt going cocaine in Michi- to "sell” the that gan magis- sequitur. To determine the a non

is required act, that it is not trate’s drugs specifically intended that the defendant required Michigan. that All that is be "sold” perform act an intentional the defendant knowledge consequences, in this harmful of its Blume by Boyle, possession drugs Michigan. Therefore, case we would hold that under the facts as found subject jurisdic- court,41 district there was matter tion to hear and decide the case.

VI Legislature sum, In we would hold possesses power proscribe conduct that oc- curs outside the state where that conduct is in- produce produces actually tended to detrimen- tal effects in the State of Because stat- proscribing conspiracy proscrib- utes ing aiding and statutes encouraging the commission of a purpose prevention danger- crime have as their action, ous concert of and because the nature of each statute is such that the conduct that consti- logically tutes a violation of the statute need not physical occur within the borders of the State of Michigan, Legislature we would hold that application intended to allow of the statute to acts that occurred outside the state.42 We would also jurisdic This Court has the benefit of a record created on the Strassheim, Supreme supra, tional issue. The United States looked Court in only alleged obtaining money to the facts in the indictment for pretenses. evidence, jury false It if a assumed that believed the Michigan, alleged defendant could be tried in because the facts as produce, the indictment showed the defendant intended to actually produced, seeking pros a detrimental effect in the state ecute. argues reversing Defendant that before the decision of the district court, the circuit court must first have found the district court findings agree abused its discretion its of fact. We with the Court of Appeals: findings dispute circuit court did not the district court’s "[T]he fact, accepted but them as valid. The circuit court decision exclusively finding was matter of based on the that the district court erred as a Slip op, p on 2. law the issue.” argues Defendant also that it was error for the circuit court to find Again agree that the elements of a were established. we Appeals: hearing with the Court of circuit court was not a "[T]he was, conceded, preliminary examination but as defense counsel held only to address the issue of whether the district court erred in determining legal question regarding jurisdiction.” Id. Mich Boyle, J. magistrate’s supports

hold that evidence case. to act in this determination the Court of the decision of We would affirm charges, Appeals, and remand the reinstate the to the district court. case Riley JJ., Mallett, concurred Boyle,

Case Details

Case Name: People v. Blume

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 31, 1993

Citation: 505 N.W.2d 843

Docket Number: 93707, (Calendar No. 1)

Court Abbreviation: Mich.