Pennsylvania
court has juridiction over crime of terroristic threats, 18 Pa. C.S.
2706(a)(1), where the plaintiff was in Pennsylvania and heard the threats of
defendant, who was in New Jersey, on the telephone.
Current technology that creates a “seemingly unlimited ability to
connect people near and far.” A contrary
holding would render an offender who utters a threatening message in one state
immune from suit in any and all other states to which he intentionally sends
his illegal communication.
Long-standing principles in this Commonwealth hold that “[a]cts done
outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental
effects[7] within it, justify a state in punishing the cause of the harm. . .
.”
Although our extensive research of this issue did not reveal any
Pennsylvania caselaw that has addressed the specific issue presented here,8 we
find the pertinent caselaw of other jurisdictions to be (citing caselaw from
Kansas, Minnesota, Hawaii).
