Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Tringali

Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division

June 28, 2017

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RORY EDWARD TRINGALI, Defendant-Respondent.

          Argued June 6, 2017

         On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County, Indictment No. 11-04-0030.[1]

          Joseph Daniel Remy, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Mr. Remy and Marie G. McGovern, Deputy Attorney General, of counsel and on the brief).

          Lawrence A. Leven argued the cause for respondent.

          Before Judges Reisner, Koblitz and Sumners.

          OPINION

          REISNER, P.J.A.D.

         The State appeals from an April 23, 2015 order dismissing the indictment, and from an October 7, 2015 order denying its motion to supplement the record.

         The trial court dismissed, on jurisdictional grounds, an indictment charging defendant with disrupting or impairing computer services, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-25(b), impersonating another for the purpose of obtaining a benefit for himself or injuring another, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-17(a)(1), and conspiring to commit those offenses. The court later denied the State's motion to supplement the record with information concerning a civil case relating to the same events.

         The State presents us with the following points of argument:

POINT I
WHILE THE TRIAL COURT INITIALLY STATED THE CORRECT PRINCIPLES OF LAW REGARDING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, IT ERRED IN REQUIRING A DIRECT NEXUS TO NEW JERSEY IN ISSUING ITS CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, THEREBY CONTRAVENING THE PLAIN WORDING OF N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(G)
POINT II
EVEN IF THE DIRECT NEXUS ANALYSIS WAS CORRECTLY APPLIED, THE STATE WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE INDICTED OFFENSES
POINT III
THE COURT ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE STATE TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD WITH EVIDENCE OF PERJURIOUS AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY THE DEFENDANT

         According to the State's evidence, defendant, acting in Florida, caused a series of "spam" attacks to be made on a Utah website that was an integral part of the victim's New Jersey-based internet business, causing the business to incur over $100, 000 in damages. The State also produced evidence that defendant engineered the spam attacks in part to exact vengeance on the New Jersey resident who operated the internet business. We hold that, as to both computer criminal activity and impersonation, the harmful result to the victim is an "element" of the offense, within the meaning of the territorial jurisdiction statute. N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(1) and -3(g). Because the State produced some evidence that the New Jersey resident, and the New Jersey corporation he operated, suffered harm in this State which was an element of each computer crime statute, New Jersey has territorial jurisdiction to prosecute defendant for those offenses. Accordingly, we reverse the April 23, 2015 order dismissing counts two and three of the indictment and we remand this matter to the trial court.

         Because the parties neither briefed nor argued the section of the territorial jurisdiction statute concerning conspiracy, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-3(a)(3), we do not address the dismissal of count one of the indictment. We remand that issue to the trial court for further briefing and reconsideration in light of this opinion. In connection with that aspect of the remand, the State may submit to the trial court the materials which were the subject of its motion to supplement the record.[2]

         I

         Based on the following evidence, in 2011 a grand jury indicted defendant on three counts: (1) second-degree conspiracy, N.J.S.A. 2C:5-2; (2) second-degree computer criminal activity, N.J.S.A. 2C:20-25(b) and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6; and (3) second-degree impersonation, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-17(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:2-6.

         The State presented testimony from one witness, Christina McCarthy, a detective with the Division of Criminal Justice (DCJ). McCarthy based her testimony on information she learned during a conference call with other detectives and two individual victims, Michael Moreno and Justin Williams. The State also presented defendant's statement, made to DCJ investigators after his arrest.

         We begin by summarizing McCarthy's grand jury testimony. Moreno is a resident of New Jersey and was an owner of a company called MedPro, Inc. (MedPro). Williams is a resident of Utah and owns a company called Physicians Information Services. The men were in a business relationship in which Moreno sold cosmetic lasers and Williams fulfilled the orders they received.

         Moreno and Williams told the DCJ detectives that MedPro's email server received a large number of undeliverable email messages concerning emails that MedPro had not sent. This meant that someone was sending emails from MedPro's email address to email addresses that did not exist. As a result, the emails were returned to MedPro as undeliverable. In some instances, MedPro received as many as 100 undeliverable emails per minute.

         Other emails were sent to actual email addresses, and included a link to MedPro's website. The emails impersonated the identity of Moreno's business, in that they appeared to come from "Sales@MedProOnline.com." Because many of the recipients had no business to conduct with MedPro and correctly viewed the emails as spam, they complained to MedPro or its website manager that the emails were unwelcome. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.