## Facts

- Jerry Farmer and Julie Hart stole eleven diamond rings from a J.C. Penney store in Flagstaff, Arizona.
- Farmer and Hart left Arizona with the rings and traveled to Durango, Colorado.
- In Durango, Farmer and Hart met Allen R. Miller for the first time; they did not know him before meeting in Colorado.
- Farmer told Miller the rings were stolen.
- Miller agreed to help dispose of the rings in Las Vegas, Nevada.
- Farmer, Hart, and Miller traveled to Las Vegas and sold some of the rings; they did not re-enter Arizona.
- Miller received two rings as payment for helping arrange and carry out the sale.
- Miller was later arrested in Utah and extradited to Arizona.
- Arizona indicted Miller on one count of theft under A.R.S. § 13-1802.
- Miller moved to dismiss for lack of territorial jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 13-108; the trial court granted the motion.
- The State appealed the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether Arizona had criminal jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 13-108 to prosecute a nonresident for theft when his conduct occurred entirely outside Arizona and began only after the property had been stolen and removed from Arizona.
2. Whether any of the State’s asserted jurisdiction theories—(a) an in-state “result,” (b) omission of an Arizona duty, (c) accomplice liability for an Arizona crime, or (d) conspiracy/attempt tied to an Arizona offense—brought Miller’s conduct within Arizona’s jurisdiction statute.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- Arizona lacked jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 13-108(A)(1) because no conduct by Miller constituting an element of the charged theft occurred in Arizona, and the asserted in-state effects were not the type of statutory “result” that permits jurisdiction over wholly out-of-state conduct.
- The “omission” theory under A.R.S. § 13-108(A)(4) failed because the charged offense was not an omission to perform a duty imposed by Arizona law on Miller.
- The accomplice theory failed because Miller did not aid, solicit, or facilitate the original Arizona theft; he became involved only after the theft was complete and outside Arizona.
- The conspiracy/attempt theory under A.R.S. § 13-108(A)(2) failed because there was no showing that Miller agreed to commit a theft in Arizona or that any act in furtherance of such an attempt or conspiracy occurred within Arizona after Miller became involved.
- In reading A.R.S. § 13-108, the court treated Arizona’s authority to punish out-of-state conduct as limited by recognized jurisdiction principles and by respect owed to other states where the relevant conduct occurred.

## Legal Principles

- A.R.S. § 13-108 allows Arizona jurisdiction when (1) conduct constituting any element of the offense occurs in Arizona, or (2) a statutorily meaningful “result” of the conduct occurs in Arizona.
- A claimed in-state “result” is not enough, by itself, to extend Arizona criminal jurisdiction to a nonresident whose charged conduct occurred wholly outside Arizona after the in-state offense was already complete.
- A.R.S. § 13-108(A)(4) applies only when the offense itself consists of an omission to perform a duty imposed by Arizona law; it does not supply jurisdiction simply because Arizona has an interest in the stolen property’s origin.
- A defendant who first becomes involved after the completion of the in-state crime, and only outside Arizona, is not treated as an accomplice to the in-state offense for jurisdiction purposes based solely on post-offense disposal of stolen property.
- Under A.R.S. § 13-108(A)(2), Arizona jurisdiction based on attempt or conspiracy requires both an attempt/conspiracy aimed at an Arizona offense and an act in furtherance occurring in Arizona.
- Jurisdiction statutes aimed at extraterritorial conduct are construed in light of generally accepted limits on a state’s authority to punish conduct occurring in other states.

## Conclusion

Because Miller’s involvement began only after the Flagstaff theft was complete and all of his charged acts occurred outside Arizona (in Colorado and Nevada), Arizona could not establish territorial jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 13-108 on a “result,” omission, accomplice, or conspiracy theory, so the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the theft prosecution.


State v. Miller, 755 P.2d 434 (1988)