## Facts

- Hanks and a co-defendant were jointly indicted in Travis County, Texas, for forging a transfer of a Texas land certificate for a league and labor of land.
- The forged instrument concerned Texas land interests and would affect legal title and rights in Texas.
- All physical acts constituting the forgery occurred in Louisiana; no acts were performed in Texas.
- The prosecution relied on Article 451 of the Texas Penal Code, which treated certain out-of-state conduct as punishable in Texas when it caused injury within Texas.
- The defendants moved to quash the indictment, arguing Texas lacked power to punish conduct wholly committed in another state.
- The trial court denied the motion to quash, and Hanks was convicted of forgery.

## Issues

1. Whether the Texas Legislature could constitutionally authorize Texas courts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over acts committed entirely outside Texas when the harmful effects occur in Texas.
2. Whether Texas could punish a forgery committed in Louisiana where the forged instrument was directed at Texas land interests and would cause legal injury in Texas.
3. Whether the indictment properly charged an offense against Texas law given that no conduct occurred within Texas’s geographic boundaries.

## Decision

- The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court upheld Article 451 as a valid legislative enactment permitting Texas to prosecute certain out-of-state conduct producing injurious effects in Texas.
- The court held Texas had jurisdiction over the forgery because the forged transfer targeted Texas land interests and the intended legal injury would occur in Texas.
- The court concluded the indictment was sufficient and the trial court properly denied the motion to quash.

## Legal Principles

- A state may, by statute, assert criminal jurisdiction over conduct committed outside its borders when the conduct is intended to produce, and does produce, injurious legal effects within the state.
- For offenses directed at in-state property rights and legal interests, the “place of legal injury” may supply the locus of the crime for jurisdictional purposes even if the physical acts occurred elsewhere.
- An extraterritorial-jurisdiction statute is not treated as enforcing the forum state’s law in the other state; it defines when conduct is deemed an offense against the forum state because of its in-state effects.

## Conclusion

Texas could prosecute an out-of-state forgery of a transfer affecting Texas land because the offense was treated as committed in Texas in legal contemplation when its intended and operative injury fell on Texas property interests and legal order; Article 451 validly supported jurisdiction and the conviction was affirmed.


Hanks v. State, 13 Tex. App. 289 (1882)