State v. Williams

“[T]he burden of proving jurisdictional facts in Oregon criminal cases ultimately lies with the state.” State v. Hill, 277 Or. App. 751, 766 (2016).

Defendant appealed conviction for first-degree assault and first-degree criminal mistreatment for conduct against an infant. Defendant assigned error to the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of proper territorial and subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendant argued there was no proof that the crimes occurred in Oregon and therefore, Oregon courts lacked jurisdiction. The State argued that proper venue could be determined under ORS 131.325 and that filing charges alleging an offense in Oregon was sufficient to establish jurisdiction. “[T]he burden of proving jurisdictional facts in Oregon criminal cases ultimately lies with the state.” State v. Hill, 277 Or. App. 751, 766 (2016). The Court found that territorial jurisdiction, as a type of subject matter jurisdiction, was a federally established limit on the court’s power to prosecute crimes. The Court reasoned that the charging instrument did not confer territorial jurisdiction, but rather gave the State an opportunity to prove that the alleged criminal acts occurred in Oregon. The Court concluded that because it could not be proven that at least one element of the crime occurred within Oregon, the court was required to dismiss the case. Reversed.