§ 102. Territorial applicability.
(a) General rule.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person may be convicted under the
law of this Commonwealth of an offense committed by his own conduct or the conduct
of another for which he is legally accountable if either:
(1) the conduct which is an element of the offense or the result which is such an element
occurs within this Commonwealth;
(2) conduct occurring outside this Commonwealth is sufficient under the law of this Commonwealth
to constitute an attempt to commit an offense within this Commonwealth;
(3) conduct occurring outside this Commonwealth is sufficient under the law of this Commonwealth
to constitute a conspiracy to commit an offense within this Commonwealth and an overt
act in furtherance of such conspiracy occurs within this Commonwealth;
(4) conduct occurring within this Commonwealth establishes complicity in the commission
of, or an attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit, an offense in another jurisdiction
which also is an offense under the law of this Commonwealth;
(5) the offense consists of the omission to perform a legal duty imposed by the law of
this Commonwealth with respect to domicile, residence or a relationship to a person,
thing or transaction in this Commonwealth; or
(6) the offense is based on a statute of this Commonwealth which expressly prohibits conduct
outside this Commonwealth when the conduct bears a reasonable relation to a legitimate
interest of this Commonwealth and the actor knows or should know that his conduct
is likely to affect that interest.
(b) Exception.--Paragraph (a)(1) of this section does not apply when causing a particular result is
an element of an offense and the result is caused by conduct occurring outside this
Commonwealth which would not constitute an offense if the result had occurred there,
unless the actor intentionally or knowingly caused the result within this Commonwealth.
(c) Homicide.--When the offense is homicide or homicide of an unborn child, either the death of the
victim, including an unborn child, or the bodily impact causing death constitutes
a "result" within the meaning of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and if the body
of a homicide victim, including an unborn child, is found within this Commonwealth,
it is presumed that such result occurred within this Commonwealth.
(d) Air space.--This Commonwealth includes the land and water and the air space above such land and
water with respect to which the Commonwealth has legislative jurisdiction.
(Oct. 2, 1997, P.L.379, No.44, eff. 180 days)
1997 Amendment. Act 44 amended subsec. (c).
Cross References. Section 102 is referred to in sections 910, 7602 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Bethea (2003)
pa · cites it 4×
“Addressing the issue from that perspective, the dissent focused on whether trial counsel was ineffective in failing to object to venue.”
Com. v. Peck, M., Jr. (2019)
pasuperct · cites it 3×
“Notably, Appellant goes to some length to distinguish his sufficiency claim from a jurisdictional analysis under 18 Pa.C.S. § 102, which defines the territorial applicability of Pennsylvania's Crimes Code.”
Commonwealth v. Ohle (1983)
pa · cites it 3×
“With respect to territorial jurisdiction Crimes Code Section 102(a), 18 Pa.C.S. § 102(a) provides, in relevant part: § 102.”
Commonwealth v. Pestinikas (1992)
pasuperct · cites it 4×
“*409 The legislature has employed the term "imposed by law" in the following provisions of the Crimes Code: Section 102 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 102(a)(5) (" Territorial applicability .”
Commonwealth v. Eichinger (2007)
pa
“Pennsylvania has codified its jurisdiction over the matter under 18 Pa.C.S. § 102(a)(1) which provides for a conviction “under the laws of this Commonwealth” when “the conduct which is an element of the offense .”
United States v. Dominique Jackson (2017)
ca3
“18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102 . Therefore, while there may not be per se territorial restrictions in Pennsylvania regarding intercepting out-of-state calls, there are, in effect, territorial limitations on the state’s use of such calls.”
Commonwealth v. Whanger (2011)
pasuperct · cites it 2×
“See 18 Pa.C.S. § 102. Every jurist within that tier of the unified judicial system is competent to hear and decide a matter arising out of the Crimes Code.”
Commonwealth v. Elia (2013)
pasuperct
“2d at 1074 ; 18 Pa.C.S. § 102. All jurists within that tier of the unified judicial system are competent to hear and resolve a matter arising out of the Crimes Code.”
Commonwealth v. McPhail (1997)
pa · cites it 2×
“18 Pa.C.S. § 102. A remaining difficulty is the Commonwealth's reliance on the common law rule that a criminal court lacks jurisdiction to try an offense that did not occur within the county.”
Commonwealth v. Booth (2001)
pa
“See 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 102, 106, 108, 1102. To define “unborn child,” as noted earlier, the legislature adopted the definition set forth in the Abortion Control Act, namely, “an individual organism of the species homo sapiens from fertilization until live birth.”
Commonwealth v. Roberts (2009)
pasuperct · cites it 2×
“; 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 102(a)(1). 12 Further, the issue of the voluntariness of a confession which implicates an individual’s Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination is a substantive question.”
Commonwealth v. Ohle (1982)
pasuperct · cites it 3×
“5, (from which 18 Pa.C.S. § 102 is derived). Often, as in the case of common law larceny, legal fictions were created which altered the essential elements of the offense to permit prosecution in the county where the defendant was apprehended instead of where the crime actually…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(1) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(3) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(a) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Ohle (1983)
pa
“With respect to territorial jurisdiction Crimes Code Section 102(a), 18 Pa.C.S. § 102(a) provides, in relevant part: § 102.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(a)(1) — 9 cases
Commonwealth v. Eichinger (2007)
pa
“Pennsylvania has codified its jurisdiction over the matter under 18 Pa.C.S. § 102(a)(1) which provides for a conviction “under the laws of this Commonwealth” when “the conduct which is an element of the offense .”
Com. v. Peck, M., Jr. (2019)
pasuperct
“Notably, Appellant goes to some length to distinguish his sufficiency claim from a jurisdictional analysis under 18 Pa.C.S. § 102, which defines the territorial applicability of Pennsylvania's Crimes Code.”
Commonwealth v. Roberts (2009)
pasuperct
“; 18 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 102(a)(1). 12 Further, the issue of the voluntariness of a confession which implicates an individual’s Fifth Amendment right to be free from self-incrimination is a substantive question.”
Commonwealth v. Ohle (1983)
pa
“With respect to territorial jurisdiction Crimes Code Section 102(a), 18 Pa.C.S. § 102(a) provides, in relevant part: § 102.”
Commonwealth v. Ohle (1982)
pasuperct
“5, (from which 18 Pa.C.S. § 102 is derived). Often, as in the case of common law larceny, legal fictions were created which altered the essential elements of the offense to permit prosecution in the county where the defendant was apprehended instead of where the crime actually…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(a)(3) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(a)(4) — 2 cases
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(a)(5) — 4 cases
Commonwealth v. Pestinikas (1992)
pasuperct
“*409 The legislature has employed the term "imposed by law" in the following provisions of the Crimes Code: Section 102 of the Crimes Code, 18 Pa.C.S. § 102(a)(5) (" Territorial applicability .”
Commonwealth v. Ohle (1983)
pa
“With respect to territorial jurisdiction Crimes Code Section 102(a), 18 Pa.C.S. § 102(a) provides, in relevant part: § 102.”
Commonwealth v. Ohle (1982)
pasuperct
“5, (from which 18 Pa.C.S. § 102 is derived). Often, as in the case of common law larceny, legal fictions were created which altered the essential elements of the offense to permit prosecution in the county where the defendant was apprehended instead of where the crime actually…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(a)(l) — 1 case
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 102(c) — 2 cases
Com. v. Peck, M., Jr. (2019)
pasuperct
“Notably, Appellant goes to some length to distinguish his sufficiency claim from a jurisdictional analysis under 18 Pa.C.S. § 102, which defines the territorial applicability of Pennsylvania's Crimes Code.”
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.