If I stood just within the border of New Mexico and shot and killed someone who stood a little distance away within the border of Texas, where would the crime have been committed? Couldn’t it be argued that I didn’t kill anyone in New Mexico, nor did I commit a crime in Texas, not having been in that state?
Clearly I wouldn’t get away with murder, but just how would I be charged and where?
The general rule is that the offense is committed in the jurisdiction where the offending actor was when he did it.
I should note in more detail, though, that even that rule may be subject to some question.
Here’s a great law school hypo: the Four Corners Murder.
Abel and Baker get into a fight at the Four Corners monument, and Abel chases Baker, circling around the point at which Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico all meet. Finally Abel fires a gun, mortally wounding Baker. At the instant the gun goes off, Abel’s body is in Colorado, but his outstretched hand, with the gun in it, is in Utah. The bullet travels across the state line from Utah into Arizona, striking Baker, who then staggers dramatically into New Mexico before dying.
Who can prosecute Abel?
(Fortunately, security cameras installed after 9/11 were able to capture the entire event in great detail, so we know, factually, precisely where each event occurred relative to the state lines.)
Bricker, is this one of those cases of “we won’t know until it happens”? That is, a lot of case law rests on precedent, but if there is no precedent, then there’s no way to know exactly how something like this will fall out until it actually happens and some poor judge is placed in the position of creating the precedent.
Of course, if there really is a precedent for this, just ignore everything I just said. 
The Federal Government, because it involved crossing state lines, and it was on a National Monument? Just a guess… Either that, or the Navajo Nation? 
I would have to think that if you killed someone on a National Monument, you’re going to Federal court.
It would also likely be easier to sort it out there since you wouldn’t have to worry about the diversity of jurisdictions.
I was told by a judge that the key is where the crime is completed (he used a different word which I don’t recall right now). So in the OP, the crime is it Texas, where the bullet actually killed the victim, even though the action was initiated in NM.
Is this assessment flat-out wrong, or is this approach simply not as important as I was led to believe?
<obligatory>IANAL</obligatory>
Even if it were decided that Texas would try the suspect for murder because that’s where the act was completed. I suspect New Mexico could at least bring charges of attempted murder on their side of the border, since that’s where the act was initiated (and “where the offending actor was” to quote Bricker).
I don’t think that would work, since attempted murder is a lesser included offense of murder, and if the shooter got tried for both, he’d be in double jeopardy. He could, however, be charged with “illegal discharge of a firearm”, or something of the sort, in New Mexico (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that New Mexico has such laws).
The Four Corners Murder, I would expect to be tried in federal courts. But I suspect that there are precedents: There was a thread recently about a murder case where the actual death occurred decades after the shooting which ultimately caused it, and it’s certainly not unreasonable to suppose that the victim might have moved in the meanwhile (though I don’t recall if he actually did in that case, there are probably other similar cases). So that covers the aspect of the victim staggering over into New Mexico before expiring. And there are probably also precedents for crimes (not necessarily murder) in which the crime was initiated in a different state than where it took effect, or where the “person” (possibly a corporation) who committed the crime was partially across state lines at the time. There may not be (and probably isn’t) a precedent for all of these elements in the same crime, but that shouldn’t be a problem.
Don’t think there’d be double jeopardy. Texas and New Mexico are different jurisdictions, and may separately charge an individual for different conduct even if the conduct in question resulted in the death of just a single person.
A good zombie but a related question, why would murder across state lines not end up in Federal Court?
My guess is, there is no correct answer and it’s just designed to get people [del]arguing[/del]debating from all angles.
I know this is a zombie, but it should be noted that the Four Corners Monument is a few dozen feet southeast of the actual borders.
This leads into the Yellowstone Defense theory - there’s a corner of Wyoming, I think, that has so few people it is arguably impossible to seat a jury of peers. I think this one entrances the survivalist/separatist/white power crowd, for some reason.
Is it a federal crime? I know it’s a crime in every state, but if it’s regulated at the state level, it’s not a federal crime, right?
No it isn’t. The borders on Google Maps are far from accurate. The quadripoint is defined in law as the centre of the bronze disk in the middle of the monument.
It is true, however, that the lines as surveyed are not exactly where they were supposed to be, but that is beside the point. Once the line is marked on the ground, that is the boundary, regardless of whether or not it is on the meridian or line of latitude it was originally planned to be.
This thread, and particularly post #4, answer this question. Essentially, the basic federal murder statute only applies in the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction”, which is stuff like US waters, ships, planes and so on.
Need answer fast? 
I hope not. We’re just a few days shy of seven years!