California Codes

Cal. Penal Code § 784.7 (2026)

Of the Local Jurisdiction of Public Offenses

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)If more than one violation of Section 220, except assault with intent to commit mayhem, 261, 264.1, 269, 286, 287, 288, 288.5, 288.7, or 289 or former Section 262 or 288a occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to a hearing pursuant to Section 954 in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial. At the hearing pursuant to Section 954, the prosecution shall present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney shall be returned to that jurisdiction.

(b)If more than one violation of Section 243.4, 261.5, 273a, 273.5, 646.9, or any crime of domestic violence as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 13700 occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, and the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to a hearing pursuant to Section 954 in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial. At the hearing pursuant to Section 954, the prosecution shall present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney shall be returned to that jurisdiction.

(c)If more than one violation of Section 236.1, 266h, or 266i occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, the jurisdiction of any of those offenses, and for any offenses properly joinable with that offense, is in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, subject to a hearing pursuant to Section 954 in the jurisdiction of the proposed trial. At the hearing pursuant to Section 954, the prosecution shall present written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction over the offenses agree to the venue. Charged offenses from jurisdictions where there is not a written agreement from the district attorney shall be returned to that jurisdiction. In determining whether all counts in the complaint should be joined in one county for prosecution, the court shall consider the location and complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of, or hardship to, the victim or victims and witnesses.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2001–2020 · leading case: Shawn Garfield Price v. Superior Court, 25 P.3d 618 (Cal. 2001).
Shawn Garfield Price v. Superior Court, 25 P.3d 618 (Cal. 2001). · cites it 4× “7 [1] permits the trial of more than one of several offenses enumerated therein in any county in which one such offense occurred if the defendant and victim are the same in all of the charged offenses. It thus creates a venue for trial of some offenses in a county other than…”
Roman Cath. Archbishop of La v. Super. Ct., 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 209 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “" However, as the District Attorney points out, Penal Code section 784.7, subdivision (a), allows a sex crime committed outside Los Angeles County to be joined with a Los Angeles County sex crime, and then for the entire case to be prosecuted in Los Angeles County.”
Nuh Nhuoc Loi v. Scribner, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (S.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 2× “) Petitioner contends that: (1) he was improperly tried in San Diego County Superior Court on count three because the criminal behavior underlying that count took place in Ventura County; (2) California Penal Code § 784.7, which provides for venue on count three in San Diego…”
Roman Catholic Archbishop v. Superior Court, 131 Cal. App. 4th 417 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “*461 As to place, the Priests complain the subpoenas are not limited to crimes committed in Los Angeles County in compliance with Penal Code section 917, which provides “[t]he grand jury may inquire into all public offenses committed or triable within the county .”
People v. Sinohue, No. B237301 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2014). · cites it 2× “Before trial, Sinohue filed a “Demand for a Hearing Pursuant to California Penal Code § 784.7,” asking that the People produce “proper documentation permitting prosecution here for crimes allegedly committed outside this jurisdiction.”
People v. Campbell, 51 Cal. App. 5th 463 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). “, the El Dorado County District Attorney’s Office)] pursuant to Penal Code section 784.7[, subdivision] (c), for your office to prosecute the acts of human trafficking which occurred in Sacramento by [defendant].”
The People v. Romero, No. G046089 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2013). “According to Romero, the Los Angeles District Attorney agreed to ―waive jurisdiction pursuant to Penal Code section 784.7 . . . for charges which occurred in Lawndale.”
Cal. Penal Code § 784.7(a): 1 case
Nuh Nhuoc Loi v. Scribner, 671 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (S.D. Cal. 2009). “) Petitioner contends that: (1) he was improperly tried in San Diego County Superior Court on count three because the criminal behavior underlying that count took place in Ventura County; (2) California Penal Code § 784.7, which provides for venue on count three in San Diego…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.