## Facts

- Norma Carty Wilson, a married California woman in her fifties, owned multiple California investment properties.
- Thomas Edward Utter, a real estate broker, had a long business relationship with Wilson, including office space in her La Cienega Boulevard building.
- In California, Utter engaged in dealings with Wilson concerning her property interests and arranged travel for a European trip.
- Before leaving California, Utter purchased airline tickets and acquired a 9mm Browning pistol.
- During the trip in Spain, Utter killed Wilson and took her jewelry.
- Utter returned to California with Wilson’s jewelry and was later charged in Los Angeles County with murder, robbery, and multiple grand theft counts, with armed allegations as to murder, robbery, and one theft count.
- The trial court denied a Penal Code § 1538.5 suppression motion; at trial, a Penal Code § 1118.1 motion resulted in dismissal of one grand theft count (count III).
- A jury convicted Utter of first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and two counts of grand theft, and found him armed during the murder and robbery.
- After a penalty-phase deadlock, the court imposed a life sentence for murder and imposed additional terms on the remaining counts, staying execution on certain sentences; the written judgment did not fully reflect the dismissal of count III.

## Issues

1. Whether California had territorial jurisdiction under Penal Code § 27 to prosecute (a) a murder committed in Spain where planning and preparation occurred in California, and (b) a robbery initiated abroad where the stolen jewelry was brought into California.
2. Whether the convictions and armed findings were supported by sufficient evidence and whether any claimed trial errors required reversal.
3. Whether the judgment required correction to conform sentencing to the dismissal of count III.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held California had jurisdiction under Penal Code § 27 over both the murder and robbery counts.
- It affirmed the convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and two counts of grand theft, and affirmed the armed findings.
- It rejected claimed reversible error, including challenges related to the suppression ruling and trial conduct.
- It modified the judgment to correct sentencing inconsistencies arising from the prior dismissal of count III and affirmed the judgment as modified.

## Legal Principles

- California may exercise territorial criminal jurisdiction under Penal Code § 27 when conduct outside the state is part of an offense that is partly carried out in California, has effects in California, or is linked to acts within California that form essential steps of the crime.
- Jurisdiction may exist for a homicide committed outside California when substantial planning, preparation, or initiation of the criminal scheme occurs within California.
- Jurisdiction may exist for a theft-related offense initiated outside California when the defendant brings and possesses the stolen property within California, providing a sufficient statutory nexus under Penal Code § 27.
- Appellate courts may modify a judgment to correct sentencing terms that conflict with a trial court’s dismissal of a count, while otherwise affirming the convictions.

## Conclusion

The court sustained California’s authority to prosecute a cross-border criminal scheme where the murder abroad was preceded by substantial in-state planning and where the stolen property was carried into California, and it affirmed the convictions while correcting the judgment to match the trial court’s dismissal of one grand theft count.


People v. Utter, 24 Cal. App. 3d 535, 101 Cal. Rptr. 214 (Ct. App. 1972)