## Facts

- Christopher Allen used another person’s identifying information even though Allen had never been in New Mexico and performed all relevant acts in other states.
- Using the victim’s identity, Allen obtained an Arizona driver’s license, rented cars in multiple states, and provided the victim’s identity as booking information when arrested in Georgia.
- The victim lived in San Juan County, New Mexico. He discovered the identity theft when he attempted to obtain a New Mexico driver’s license and also began receiving bills related to rental-car charges.
- New Mexico charged Allen with eight counts of identity theft under NMSA 1978, § 30-16-24.1(A).
- Allen moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the federal and state constitutions required prosecution in the jurisdiction where the crime was committed and that all conduct occurred outside New Mexico.
- The State responded that § 30-16-24.1(G) deems identity theft “committed” in certain locations, including where the victim resides, and that this supported a New Mexico prosecution.
- The district court denied the motion to dismiss, reasoning (without relying solely on the venue subsection) that the “without authorization or consent” element was satisfied in New Mexico because the victim was in New Mexico and did not authorize use of his identity.
- Allen entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the jurisdictional ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether New Mexico has territorial criminal jurisdiction to prosecute identity theft when the defendant never entered New Mexico and all uses of the victim’s identity occurred outside the state, but the victim lived in New Mexico.
2. Whether § 30-16-24.1(G), which provides that identity theft is “deemed to have been committed” in specified places including the victim’s county of residence, may be considered in determining where the offense occurred for jurisdiction and venue purposes.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Allen’s motion to dismiss and affirmed the resulting conviction.
- The court held New Mexico could prosecute because the offense had a sufficient connection to New Mexico: the victim resided there, the harm was experienced there, and the “without authorization or consent” aspect of the statutory definition was linked to the victim in New Mexico.
- The court rejected Allen’s argument that New Mexico was constitutionally barred from prosecuting simply because his physical conduct occurred elsewhere.
- The court also accepted that the Legislature may specify where identity theft is treated as having been committed, including where the victim resides, and that this statutory location can support prosecution in New Mexico when tied to the victim and resulting harm.

## Legal Principles

- A state may exercise criminal jurisdiction when an essential element of the charged offense or the offense’s harmful result occurs in the state, even if some or all of the defendant’s conduct occurred elsewhere.
- For offenses that can be committed across state lines, the Legislature may identify where the crime is treated as having been committed, including by tying the crime to the victim’s residence, so long as the forum state has a real connection to the offense.
- Under New Mexico’s identity-theft statute, the “without authorization or consent” requirement can support locating the offense where the victim is situated and where the lack of consent is operative.
- Statutory language deeming identity theft committed in particular locations may operate as more than an internal county-allocation rule; it can inform where the offense is considered to occur for prosecution, consistent with constitutional limits.

## Conclusion

State v. Allen held that New Mexico had jurisdiction to prosecute identity theft even though Allen never entered New Mexico and used the victim’s identity only in other states, because the victim lived in New Mexico, experienced harm there, and the statute and elements of the offense tied the crime’s location to the victim’s lack of authorization and residence in New Mexico.


State v. Allen, 336 P.3d 1007 (2014)