venue requirement in California

2013While the principal justification for the venue requirement is to protect the accused from the hardship and unfairness of being charged in a remote location, “venue provisions also serve to protect the interests of the community in which a crime or related activity occurs, ‘vindicat[ing] the community’s right to sit in judgment on crimes committed within its territory.’ ” (People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1095 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 25 P.3d 598 ].) Here, appellant sold a substantial amount of heroin to a resident of Ventura County.

2013While the principal justification for the venue requirement is to protect the accused from the hardship and unfairness of being charged in a remote location, “venue provisions also serve to protect the interests of the community in which a crime or related activity occurs, ‘vindicat[ing] the community’s right to sit in judgment on crimes committed within its territory.’ ” (People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1095 [ 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 25 P.3d 598 ].) Here, appellant sold a substantial amount of heroin to a resident of Ventura County.

2004In determining the meaning of section 781, we construe the provision liberally in order to achieve its underlying purpose, which is to expand venue beyond the single county in which a crime may be said to have been committed (see, e.g., People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1118 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 373 , 52 P.3d 572 ]; People v. Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1109; People v. Bismillah (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 80, 85 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 25 ]; cf. Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1055 [concluding that provisions like § 781 are “remedial and for that reason [are] construed liberally

2003Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction is a nonfundamental aspect of jurisdiction which may be waived. ( Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1109, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 25 P.3d 598 ; Sering, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at pp. 684-685, 283 Cal.Rptr. 507 ; People v. Campbell (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1432, 1443 , 281 Cal.Rptr. 870 .) Failure to timely tender a proposed instruction waives a defendant's right to have the question of venue submitted to the jury. ( Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 1109-1110, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 25 P.3d 598 .) Defendant's failure to request a venue instructio

2004In determining the meaning of section 781, we construe the provision liberally in order to achieve its underlying purpose, which is to expand venue beyond the single county in which a crime may be said to have been committed (see, e.g., People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1118 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 373 , 52 P.3d 572 ]; People v. Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1109; People v. Bismillah (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 80, 85 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 25 ]; cf. Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1055 [concluding that provisions like § 781 are “remedial and for that reason [are] construed liberally

1991Further, jurors must be drawn from the county of trial, even if only preliminary acts take place in that county. ‘If that means that for Sixth Amendment purposes California interprets the word “crime” as including preliminary acts which satisfy the venue requirement of section 781 of the Penal Code, so be it.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Bismillah, supra, 208 Cal.App.3d at p. 89 .) Here, both sections 781 and 786 are legislative determinations that trial is appropriate in more than one county when certain facts apply; i.e., section 781 allows jurisdiction in any county where acts preliminary or re

2003Unlike subject matter jurisdiction, territorial jurisdiction is a nonfundamental aspect of jurisdiction which may be waived. ( Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1109, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 25 P.3d 598 ; Sering, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d at pp. 684-685, 283 Cal.Rptr. 507 ; People v. Campbell (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 1432, 1443 , 281 Cal.Rptr. 870 .) Failure to timely tender a proposed instruction waives a defendant's right to have the question of venue submitted to the jury. ( Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 1109-1110, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 , 25 P.3d 598 .) Defendant's failure to request a venue instructio

2001Relying on People v. Sering (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 677, 687-691 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 507 ] (Sering), petitioner contends that trial of the Santa Clara County charge in Riverside County violates the venue rule, as the charge will be tried in a county remote from the scene of the crime.

2025(See, e.g., People v. Ramirez (2022) 13 Cal.5th 997 , 1037 (Ramirez) [244 articles]; People v. Famalaro (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1, 22 (Famalaro) [289 articles].) Most were published shortly after the crimes, which happened three years before the venue hearing and nearly four years before jury selection began.

2021(Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520 (Tanguilig) [“[W]e may disregard factual contentions that are not supported by citations to the record.”].) 6 The three alleged errors were (1) that S.B. and B.J.’s relationship occurred entirely in Los Angeles; (2) that B.J. and the “other children” have never lived in Kern County; and (3) that a conversation from the Los Angeles County proceeding’s reporter’s transcript was incorrectly cited by the trial court. 7. way relevant to the court’s venue analysis.

2018It " ' "promotes the convenience of both parties in obtaining evidence and securing the presence of witnesses." ' " ( Thomas, supra , 53 Cal.4th at p. 1287 , 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 184 , 274 P.3d 1170 .) "It 'provide[s] for trial in a county that bears a reasonable relationship' to the offenses." ( Ibid . ) It also serves to " ' " 'safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place.' " ' " ( Ibid . ) Additionally, the venue requirement provides "participation on the part of the community affected" ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 204, 8 Cal

2018It " ' "promotes the convenience of both parties in obtaining evidence and securing the presence of witnesses." ' " ( Thomas, supra , 53 Cal.4th at p. 1287 , 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 184 , 274 P.3d 1170 .) "It 'provide[s] for trial in a county that bears a reasonable relationship' to the offenses." ( Ibid . ) It also serves to " ' " 'safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place.' " ' " ( Ibid . ) Additionally, the venue requirement provides "participation on the part of the community affected" ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 204, 8 Cal

2018It " ' "promotes the convenience of both parties in obtaining evidence and securing the presence of witnesses." ' " ( Thomas, supra , 53 Cal.4th at p. 1287 , 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 184 , 274 P.3d 1170 .) "It 'provide[s] for trial in a county that bears a reasonable relationship' to the offenses." ( Ibid . ) It also serves to " ' " 'safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place.' " ' " ( Ibid . ) Additionally, the venue requirement provides "participation on the part of the community affected" ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 204, 8 Cal

2018It " ' "promotes the convenience of both parties in obtaining evidence and securing the presence of witnesses." ' " ( Thomas, supra , 53 Cal.4th at p. 1287 , 140 Cal.Rptr.3d 184 , 274 P.3d 1170 .) "It 'provide[s] for trial in a county that bears a reasonable relationship' to the offenses." ( Ibid . ) It also serves to " ' " 'safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place.' " ' " ( Ibid . ) Additionally, the venue requirement provides "participation on the part of the community affected" ( People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193 , 204, 8 Cal

2004In determining the meaning of section 781, we construe the provision liberally in order to achieve its underlying purpose, which is to expand venue beyond the single county in which a crime may be said to have been committed (see, e.g., People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1118 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 373 , 52 P.3d 572 ]; People v. Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1109; People v. Bismillah (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 80, 85 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 25 ]; cf. Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1055 [concluding that provisions like § 781 are “remedial and for that reason [are] construed liberally

2004In determining the meaning of section 781, we construe the provision liberally in order to achieve its underlying purpose, which is to expand venue beyond the single county in which a crime may be said to have been committed (see, e.g., People v. Gutierrez (2002) 28 Cal.4th 1083, 1118 [ 124 Cal.Rptr.2d 373 , 52 P.3d 572 ]; People v. Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1109; People v. Bismillah (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 80, 85 [ 256 Cal.Rptr. 25 ]; cf. Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1055 [concluding that provisions like § 781 are “remedial and for that reason [are] construed liberally

2001As one leading criminal treatise explains: “The principal justification today for the venue requirement of trial in the vicinity of the crime is to ‘safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place.’ ” (1 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure (13th ed. 1989) § 34, p. 183, quoting United States v. Cores (1958) 356 U.S. 405, 407 [ 78 S.Ct. 875, 877 , 2 L.Ed.2d 873 ]; see, e.g., United States v. Johnson (1944) 323 U.S. 273, 275-278 [ 65 S.Ct. 249, 250-252 , 89 L.Ed. 236 ].) Finally, venue provisions also serve to protect the interests of the community

2001As one leading criminal treatise explains: “The principal justification today for the venue requirement of trial in the vicinity of the crime is to ‘safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place.’ ” (1 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure (13th ed. 1989) § 34, p. 183, quoting United States v. Cores (1958) 356 U.S. 405, 407 [ 78 S.Ct. 875, 877 , 2 L.Ed.2d 873 ]; see, e.g., United States v. Johnson (1944) 323 U.S. 273, 275-278 [ 65 S.Ct. 249, 250-252 , 89 L.Ed. 236 ].) Finally, venue provisions also serve to protect the interests of the community

2001As one leading criminal treatise explains: “The principal justification today for the venue requirement of trial in the vicinity of the crime is to ‘safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place.’ ” (1 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure (13th ed. 1989) § 34, p. 183, quoting United States v. Cores (1958) 356 U.S. 405, 407 [ 78 S.Ct. 875, 877 , 2 L.Ed.2d 873 ]; see, e.g., United States v. Johnson (1944) 323 U.S. 273, 275-278 [ 65 S.Ct. 249, 250-252 , 89 L.Ed. 236 ].) Finally, venue provisions also serve to protect the interests of the community

2001As one leading criminal treatise explains: “The principal justification today for the venue requirement of trial in the vicinity of the crime is to ‘safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place.’ ” (1 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure (13th ed. 1989) § 34, p. 183, quoting United States v. Cores (1958) 356 U.S. 405, 407 [ 78 S.Ct. 875, 877 , 2 L.Ed.2d 873 ]; see, e.g., United States v. Johnson (1944) 323 U.S. 273, 275-278 [ 65 S.Ct. 249, 250-252 , 89 L.Ed. 236 ].) Finally, venue provisions also serve to protect the interests of the community

2001(See, e.g., People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 489-496 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 537 , 797 P.2d 561 ]; People v. Wilson, supra, 60 Cal.2d 139, 146-148 ; see generally People v. McGee (1977) 19 Cal.3d 948, 967-968 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 568 P.2d 382 ].) Indeed, treating venue as presenting a question to be resolved by a jury appears particularly problematic when one considers that the principal purpose underlying the venue statutes from a defendant’s perspective—to protect a defendant from being required to stand trial in a distant and unduly burdensome locale—can be meaningfully effectuated only if

2001(See, e.g., People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 489-496 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 537 , 797 P.2d 561 ]; People v. Wilson, supra, 60 Cal.2d 139, 146-148 ; see generally People v. McGee (1977) 19 Cal.3d 948, 967-968 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 568 P.2d 382 ].) Indeed, treating venue as presenting a question to be resolved by a jury appears particularly problematic when one considers that the principal purpose underlying the venue statutes from a defendant’s perspective—to protect a defendant from being required to stand trial in a distant and unduly burdensome locale—can be meaningfully effectuated only if

2001As one leading criminal treatise explains: “The principal justification today for the venue requirement of trial in the vicinity of the crime is to ‘safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place.’ ” (1 Wharton’s Criminal Procedure (13th ed. 1989) § 34, p. 183, quoting United States v. Cores (1958) 356 U.S. 405, 407 [ 78 S.Ct. 875, 877 , 2 L.Ed.2d 873 ]; see, e.g., United States v. Johnson (1944) 323 U.S. 273, 275-278 [ 65 S.Ct. 249, 250-252 , 89 L.Ed. 236 ].) Finally, venue provisions also serve to protect the interests of the community

2001(See, e.g., People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 489-496 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 537 , 797 P.2d 561 ]; People v. Wilson, supra, 60 Cal.2d 139, 146-148 ; see generally People v. McGee (1977) 19 Cal.3d 948, 967-968 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 568 P.2d 382 ].) Indeed, treating venue as presenting a question to be resolved by a jury appears particularly problematic when one considers that the principal purpose underlying the venue statutes from a defendant’s perspective—to protect a defendant from being required to stand trial in a distant and unduly burdensome locale—can be meaningfully effectuated only if

2001(See, e.g., People v. Sanders (1990) 51 Cal.3d 471, 489-496 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 537 , 797 P.2d 561 ]; People v. Wilson, supra, 60 Cal.2d 139, 146-148 ; see generally People v. McGee (1977) 19 Cal.3d 948, 967-968 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 657 , 568 P.2d 382 ].) Indeed, treating venue as presenting a question to be resolved by a jury appears particularly problematic when one considers that the principal purpose underlying the venue statutes from a defendant’s perspective—to protect a defendant from being required to stand trial in a distant and unduly burdensome locale—can be meaningfully effectuated only if