## Facts

- Albert F. Ingram was indicted in New Jersey on multiple criminal counts, including two counts alleging unlawful disposal and/or abandonment of hazardous waste.
- The hazardous-waste counts (Counts 4 and 8) were based on allegations that Ingram dumped hazardous waste at a United States Army Corps of Engineers site located in New Jersey (Oldmans Township).
- Ingram moved to dismiss Counts 4 and 8 on two alternative grounds: (1) because the conduct occurred on federal property, the charges belonged in federal court; and (2) territorial jurisdiction was an element the State had not proven because the conduct occurred on federally owned land.
- The State conceded that the land was owned by the United States but argued that federal law—particularly the Federal Solid Waste Disposal Act’s sovereign-immunity waiver, 42 U.S.C. § 6961—subjected federal facilities to state hazardous-waste requirements and supported state enforcement.
- The jurisdiction challenge was raised during trial at the close of the State’s case. The trial court initially denied dismissal and permitted the State to reopen its proofs for the limited purpose of presenting additional evidence on territorial jurisdiction.
- Ingram was convicted on all counts. The court reserved the right to further research and decide, in a later written opinion, whether New Jersey had territorial criminal jurisdiction over Counts 4 and 8.

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey had territorial criminal jurisdiction to prosecute hazardous-waste offenses alleged to have occurred on land owned by the United States (a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers site) within the geographic boundaries of New Jersey.  
2. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 6961’s waiver of federal sovereign immunity, which subjects federal facilities to state environmental requirements, itself established or supplied New Jersey criminal jurisdiction over conduct on federal land.  
3. Whether, once territorial jurisdiction was placed in issue, the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt the facts needed to show New Jersey retained territorial criminal jurisdiction over the site (including facts bearing on federal acquisition and acceptance of jurisdiction).  

## Decision

- The court held that, once territorial jurisdiction is placed in issue in a New Jersey criminal case, the State must prove territorial jurisdiction beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court concluded the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that New Jersey had territorial criminal jurisdiction over the federal site for purposes of Counts 4 and 8.
- The court rejected the State’s argument that 42 U.S.C. § 6961, by itself, conferred state criminal jurisdiction over federally owned land.
- Counts 4 and 8 were dismissed with prejudice for lack of territorial jurisdiction; the other convictions were not disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Territorial jurisdiction in a New Jersey criminal prosecution need not be affirmatively proved unless it is placed in issue; once contested, the prosecution must establish it beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Federal ownership of the land where the conduct occurred raises a jurisdictional question that turns on the allocation of authority over federal property (including whether exclusive federal jurisdiction applies, or whether the State retained concurrent authority).
- To prove state territorial criminal jurisdiction over conduct on federal land, the State must present evidence showing why state jurisdiction exists for the specific tract, which may require proof related to federal acquisition and whether the United States accepted exclusive jurisdiction under the federal acceptance framework (now codified at 40 U.S.C. § 3112 and its predecessors).
- A federal waiver of sovereign immunity that subjects federal facilities to state environmental requirements does not automatically transfer or create state territorial criminal jurisdiction over a federal enclave.
- When the prosecution fails to prove territorial jurisdiction after it is placed in issue, dismissal of the affected counts is required.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Ingram*, the court dismissed with prejudice the two hazardous-waste counts based on alleged dumping at a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers site because, after territorial jurisdiction was contested, the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that New Jersey had territorial criminal jurisdiction over that federal property, and the federal sovereign-immunity waiver in 42 U.S.C. § 6961 did not supply the missing jurisdictional showing.


State v. Ingram, 545 A.2d 268 (1988)