Tennessee high court weighs whether online payment can make theft "consummated" in state

Tennessee Supreme Court justices heard competing arguments over whether an out-of-state defendant can be convicted in Tennessee for a theft that was carried out by electronic transfer to the defendant outside the state.

At oral argument, Isaac Gibson, counsel for the appellant Ronald Matthew Lacey, said the case "concerns the outer limits of Tennessee's territorial jurisdiction," arguing that "Mr. Lacey was never present in the state" and that Tennessee could not show the theft was consummated within the state's borders. Gibson asked the court to reverse the Court of Criminal Appeals and "enter a judgment of acquittal in favor of the appellant."

Matt Rice, counsel for the State of Tennessee, told the court that "Mr. Lacey reached into Tennessee to trick a Tennessee resident into sending him money from Tennessee. Put simply, he stole money in Tennessee," and argued the theft was consummated in Tennessee both because the statutory "bring about" language was satisfied when the Tennessee victim initiated the transfer and because the transaction produced detrimental effects in Tennessee.

Why it matters: the court must interpret Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-103 (territorial jurisdiction) together with the statutory definition of "obtain" and the theft statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-103. The resolution will affect…