N.J. Stat. » Title 2C — THE NEW JERSEY CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-3 (2026)

Territorial applicability

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

2C:1-3. Territorial applicability.

a. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person may be convicted under the law of this State of an offense committed by his own conduct or the conduct of another for which he is legally accountable if:

(1) Either the conduct which is an element of the offense or the result which is such an element occurs within this State;

(2) Conduct occurring outside the State is sufficient under the law of this State to constitute an attempt to commit a crime within the State;

(3) Conduct occurring outside the State is sufficient under the law of this State to constitute a conspiracy to commit an offense within the State and an overt act in furtherance of such conspiracy occurs within the State;

(4) Conduct occurring within the State establishes complicity in the commission of, or an attempt, or conspiracy to commit, an offense in another jurisdiction which also is an offense under the law of this State;

(5) The offense consists of the omission to perform a legal duty imposed by the law of this State with respect to domicile, residence or a relationship to a person, thing or transaction in the State; or

(6) The offense is based on a statute of this State which expressly prohibits conduct outside the State, when the conduct bears a reasonable relation to a legitimate interest of this State and the actor knows or should know that his conduct is likely to affect that interest.

b. Subsection a.(1) does not apply when either causing a specified result or a purpose to cause or danger of causing such a result is an element of an offense and the result occurs or is designed or likely to occur only in another jurisdiction where the conduct charged would not constitute an offense, unless a legislative purpose plainly appears to declare the conduct criminal regardless of the place of the result.

c. Except as provided in subsection g., subsection a. (1) does not apply when causing a particular result is an element of an offense and the result is caused by conduct occurring outside the State which would not constitute an offense if the result had occurred there, unless the actor purposely or knowingly caused the result within the State.

d. When the offense is homicide, either the death of the victim or the bodily impact causing death constitutes a "result," within the meaning of subsection a.(1) and if the body of a homicide victim is found within the State, it may be inferred that such result occurred within the State.

e. This State includes the land and water, including the waters set forth in N.J.S.40A:13-2 and the air space above such land and water with respect to which the State has legislative jurisdiction. It also includes any territory made subject to the criminal jurisdiction of this State by compacts between it and another state or between it and the Federal Government.

f. Notwithstanding that territorial jurisdiction may be found under this section, the court may dismiss, hold in abeyance for up to six months, or, with the permission of the defendant, place on the inactive list a criminal prosecution under the law of this State where it appears that such action is in the interests of justice because the defendant is being prosecuted for an offense based on the same conduct in another jurisdiction and this State's interest will be adequately served by a prosecution in the other jurisdiction.

g. When the result which is an element of an offense consists of inflicting a harm upon a resident of this State or depriving a resident of this State of a benefit, the result occurs within this State, even if the conduct occurs wholly outside this State and any property that was affected by the offense was located outside this State.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: State v. Noel E. Ferguson & Anthony M. Potts State v. Shameik Byrd (081423) (Passaic Cnty. & Statewide), 207 A.3d 1253 (N.J. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Noel E. Ferguson & Anthony M. Potts State v. Shameik Byrd (081423) (Passaic Cnty. & Statewide), 207 A.3d 1253 (N.J. 2019). · cites it 47× “The outcome of this case depends on the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 -- a statute governing territorial jurisdiction -- and on the territorial scope of the strict-liability drug-induced death statute, N.”
State v. Aloi, 204 A.3d 297 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). · cites it 18× “Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that New Jersey lacked territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. The court agreed, finding "no defendant can be prosecuted in this State without having committed the act in this State or the…”
State of New Jersey Vs. Rory Edward Tringali(11-04-0030, Burlington Cnty. & Statewide), 164 A.3d 1072 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 9× “"As the language of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 makes clear, . . . the various methods that allow for jurisdiction in a criminal case all require a direct nexus to New Jersey.”
Fairfax Fin. Holdings Ltd. v. S.A.C., 160 A.3d 44 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). · cites it 6× “In a criminal prosecution, in addition to subject matter and personal jurisdiction, a New Jersey court must have "territoriality," meaning territorial jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. State v. Denofa, 187 N.J.”
State v. Ferguson, 187 A.3d 865 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). · cites it 11× “] 2C:35-9 as to defendants Ferguson and Potts must fail." *869 The trial judge reached a different result as to Byrd.”
State v. Michael Sumulikoski / State v. Artur Sopel (072957), 110 A.3d 856 (N.J. 2015). · cites it 2× “The notion of strict territoriality relaxed over time, and it has become common for state courts to invoke jurisdiction “whenever any act pertaining to the criminal transaction occurs or takes effect within the forum state, even [if] the major activity took place elsewhere.”
State v. Denofa, 898 A.2d 523 (N.J. 2006). “13; see generally 2 Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, commentary to § 2C:1-3, at 5-9 (1971). "The Commission’s *39 commentary, as well as published comment on the MPC, may, therefore, assist us in our understanding of the Code.”
State v. Sanders, 553 A.2d 354 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1989). · cites it 2× “2C:1-3; Commentary to § 2C:1-3, II The New Jersey Penal Code Commentary: Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission (1971) at 5.”
State v. Honsch, 349 Conn. 783 (Conn. 2024). “§ 625:4 (III) (2016) (‘‘if the body of a homicide victim is found within this state, it is presumed that such result occurred within the state’’); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:1-3 (d) (West 2015) (‘‘if the body of a homicide victim is found within the State, it may be inferred that such…”
State v. Washington, 538 A.2d 1256 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1988). · cites it 2× “Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when: (1) It is committed recklessly; or *373 (2) A homicide which would otherwise be murder under section 2C:1-3 is committed in the heat of passion resulting from a reasonable provocation.”
State v. Gruber, 829 A.2d 284 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2003). “In view of the continued and increasing importance of criminal conduct which is interstate in nature and given the protection to the defendant from the provisions of § 2C:1-10 of the Code [establishing when a prosecution is barred by a former prosecution for a different offense]…”
State v. Mykal L. Derry State v. Malik Derry (085795) (Atl. Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. 2022). · cites it 33× “The Commission believed that N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 “somewhat broaden[ed] New Jersey’s criminal jurisdiction” and thus included subsection (f) to “adequately protect against multiple prosecutions while, at the same time, granting a broad power to the State to prosecute where…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-3(a): 8 cases
Fairfax Fin. Holdings Ltd. v. S.A.C., 160 A.3d 44 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “In a criminal prosecution, in addition to subject matter and personal jurisdiction, a New Jersey court must have "territoriality," meaning territorial jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. State v. Denofa, 187 N.J.”
State v. Ferguson, 187 A.3d 865 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “] 2C:35-9 as to defendants Ferguson and Potts must fail." *869 The trial judge reached a different result as to Byrd.”
State v. Aloi, 204 A.3d 297 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that New Jersey lacked territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. The court agreed, finding "no defendant can be prosecuted in this State without having committed the act in this State or the…”
State of New Jersey Vs. Rory Edward Tringali(11-04-0030, Burlington Cnty. & Statewide), 164 A.3d 1072 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “"As the language of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 makes clear, . . . the various methods that allow for jurisdiction in a criminal case all require a direct nexus to New Jersey.”
State v. Michael Sumulikoski / State v. Artur Sopel (072957) (N.J. 2015).
N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-3(a)(1): 14 cases
State v. Noel E. Ferguson & Anthony M. Potts State v. Shameik Byrd (081423) (Passaic Cnty. & Statewide), 207 A.3d 1253 (N.J. 2019). “The outcome of this case depends on the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 -- a statute governing territorial jurisdiction -- and on the territorial scope of the strict-liability drug-induced death statute, N.”
State v. Aloi, 204 A.3d 297 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that New Jersey lacked territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. The court agreed, finding "no defendant can be prosecuted in this State without having committed the act in this State or the…”
State v. Ferguson, 187 A.3d 865 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “] 2C:35-9 as to defendants Ferguson and Potts must fail." *869 The trial judge reached a different result as to Byrd.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Rory Edward Tringali(11-04-0030, Burlington Cnty. & Statewide), 164 A.3d 1072 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “"As the language of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 makes clear, . . . the various methods that allow for jurisdiction in a criminal case all require a direct nexus to New Jersey.”
Fairfax Fin. Holdings Ltd. v. S.A.C., 160 A.3d 44 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “In a criminal prosecution, in addition to subject matter and personal jurisdiction, a New Jersey court must have "territoriality," meaning territorial jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. State v. Denofa, 187 N.J.”
N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-3(a)(2): 3 cases
Fairfax Fin. Holdings Ltd. v. S.A.C., 160 A.3d 44 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “In a criminal prosecution, in addition to subject matter and personal jurisdiction, a New Jersey court must have "territoriality," meaning territorial jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. State v. Denofa, 187 N.J.”
State v. Aloi, 204 A.3d 297 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that New Jersey lacked territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. The court agreed, finding "no defendant can be prosecuted in this State without having committed the act in this State or the…”
State of New Jersey Vs. Robert Aloi (18-02-0295, Middlesex Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-3(a)(3): 2 cases
Fairfax Fin. Holdings Ltd. v. S.A.C., 160 A.3d 44 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “In a criminal prosecution, in addition to subject matter and personal jurisdiction, a New Jersey court must have "territoriality," meaning territorial jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. State v. Denofa, 187 N.J.”
State of New Jersey Vs. Rory Edward Tringali(11-04-0030, Burlington Cnty. & Statewide), 164 A.3d 1072 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “"As the language of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 makes clear, . . . the various methods that allow for jurisdiction in a criminal case all require a direct nexus to New Jersey.”
N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-3(a)(4): 1 case
Fairfax Fin. Holdings Ltd. v. S.A.C., 160 A.3d 44 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “In a criminal prosecution, in addition to subject matter and personal jurisdiction, a New Jersey court must have "territoriality," meaning territorial jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. State v. Denofa, 187 N.J.”
N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-3(a)(6): 1 case
State v. Michael Sumulikoski / State v. Artur Sopel (072957) (N.J. 2015).
N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-3(b): 5 cases
State v. Noel E. Ferguson & Anthony M. Potts State v. Shameik Byrd (081423) (Passaic Cnty. & Statewide), 207 A.3d 1253 (N.J. 2019). “The outcome of this case depends on the meaning of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 -- a statute governing territorial jurisdiction -- and on the territorial scope of the strict-liability drug-induced death statute, N.”
State v. Ferguson, 187 A.3d 865 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2018). “] 2C:35-9 as to defendants Ferguson and Potts must fail." *869 The trial judge reached a different result as to Byrd.”
State v. Aloi, 204 A.3d 297 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019). “Defendant moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that New Jersey lacked territorial jurisdiction over the alleged offense under N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3. The court agreed, finding "no defendant can be prosecuted in this State without having committed the act in this State or the…”
State of New Jersey v. Ronald J. Krier (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025).
State of New Jersey v. Malihki X. Oliver (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025).
N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-3(f): 3 cases
State v. Mykal L. Derry State v. Malik Derry (085795) (Atl. Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. 2022). “The Commission believed that N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 “somewhat broaden[ed] New Jersey’s criminal jurisdiction” and thus included subsection (f) to “adequately protect against multiple prosecutions while, at the same time, granting a broad power to the State to prosecute where…”
State of New Jersey Vs. Mykal L. Derry State of New Jersey Vs. Malik Derry (14-06-2067, Atl. Cnty. & Statewide) (Consol.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
State of New Jersey Vs. Eddie J. Marte (14-12-1939, Bergen Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017).
N.J. Stat. § 2C:1-3(g): 4 cases
State of New Jersey Vs. Rory Edward Tringali(11-04-0030, Burlington Cnty. & Statewide), 164 A.3d 1072 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2017). “"As the language of N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3 makes clear, . . . the various methods that allow for jurisdiction in a criminal case all require a direct nexus to New Jersey.”
State of New Jersey v. Ronald J. Krier (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2025).
State of New Jersey Vs. Ling Zhou (18-08-0622, Cape May Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021).
State v. Michael Sumulikoski / State v. Artur Sopel (072957) (N.J. 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.