While on board the Matanuska, an Alaska state ferry navigating from Bellingham, Washington to southeast Alaska through the Inside Passage, Vernon G. Jack V, engaged in sexual contact with, and sexual penetration of, S.N.F. and physically assaulted her. After investigating S.N.F.'s complaints, an

Jack moved to dismiss the indictment based on the State's lack of jurisdiction to prosecute him because his alleged conduct had taken place in Canadian territorial waters. The Superior Court granted Jack's motion to dismiss, and the Alaska Court of Appeals granted the State's petition for review. The Court affirms, concluding that AS Section 44.03.010 (the Statute) does not extend Alaska's criminal jurisdiction to Canadian territorial waters.

The Statute provides that: "[t]he jurisdiction of the state extends to water offshore from the coast of the state as follows: (1) the marginal sea to its outermost limits as those limits are from time to time defined or recognized by the United States of America by international treaty or otherwise; (2) the high seas to the extent that jurisdiction is claimed by the United States of America, or to the extent recognized by the usages and customs of international law or by agreement to which the United States of America or the state is a party; (3) submerged land including the subsurface of submerged land, lying under the water mentioned in this section." [Slip op. 1-2] [emphasis supplied]

Although Alaska contended that it had jurisdiction under clause (2), the Court rejects this reading. It "is far too broad, and ignores the statute's initial limitation to 'waters offshore the coast.' The State provides no authority that would support a conclusion that the United States is empowered to regulate foreign territorial waters under either its power to regulate 'Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas,' or under the federal government's special admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." [Slip op. 3]

Nor does the State have jurisdiction under the Statute to prosecute Jack's crimes based on the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. That source allows the United States to define and punish crimes committed by its citizens on U.S.-flagged vessels (such as the Matanuska) operating in foreign territorial waters. "[T]he United States' authority over its flagged vessels while they are in foreign territorial waters is not exclusive -- the coastal state has a concurrent interest in regulating the conduct aboard vessels within its territorial waters."

"In other words, the fact that the United States has criminal jurisdiction over its flagged vessels does not preclude Canada from exercising its own jurisdiction when conduct aboard the vessel affects Canada's 'peace, dignity or tranquility.' And even if the United States had jurisdiction over the vessel while it was in Canada's territorial waters, it does not follow that Alaska has the same jurisdiction, because nothing in AS Section 44.03.010 indicates that the legislature intended to assert jurisdiction over an Alaskan vessel operating outside the territorial waters specifically described in the statute." [Slip op. 3]

Editors' Note. "Apparently in response to this and similar cases, the legislature recently passed AS Section 12.05.020, making it clear that Alaska's jurisdiction does extend to the Alaska Ferry System. Alaska Statute Section 12.05.020 states: 'A person may be prosecuted under the laws of this state for an offense committed on or against ... a ferry or other water craft owned or operated by the state, even if the ... ferry ... is in ... water outside the state when the offense is alleged to have occurred.'" [Slip op. 6, note 12]

Citation: State v. Jack, 67 P.3d 673 (Alaska App. 2003).