Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 51 — COURTS · Chapter 890 — Judicial Districts, Geographical Areas, Civil and Criminal Venue, Filing and Designation of Court Location
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-352c (2025)

(Formerly Sec. 54-41). Jurisdiction of various offenses

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A criminal prosecution shall not fail by reason of the fact that the evidence may disclose the crime to have been committed in a town or judicial district adjoining that alleged in the indictment or information.

(b) If any person is accused of committing any offense on the boundary or divisional line between any of the towns or judicial districts in the state, or so near thereto as to render it doubtful in which town or judicial district the offense was committed, the town or judicial district which first assumes jurisdiction by issuing process for the arrest and prosecution of the offender, whether the name of such offender is known or unknown, shall have exclusive jurisdiction to charge, present, indict, try, convict and sentence. In such a case, it shall only be necessary for the state, judicial district, town, city or borough to establish the venue alleged in the information, complaint, warrant or indictment by proving that the offense alleged was committed on the boundary of the judicial district or town in which the accused is being tried or so near thereto as to render it doubtful in which town or judicial district the offense was committed.

(c) The provisions of this section shall not impair the right of the accused to obtain a change of venue.

(1949 Rev., S. 8763; P.A. 73-116, S. 13; 73-667, S. 1, 2; P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 127; P.A. 82-248, S. 161.)

History: P.A. 73-116 added references to judicial districts; P.A. 73-667 changed effective date of P.A. 73-116 from October 1, 1973, to April 25, 1973; P.A. 78-280 deleted references to counties; Sec. 54-41 transferred to Sec. 51-352c in 1981; P.A. 82-248 rephrased the section and inserted Subsec. indicators.

See Sec. 51-352b re jurisdiction of crimes committed on water.

See Sec. 54-1b re arraignment of prisoners and required advice as to rights.

Cited. 197 C. 507; 198 C. 147; Id., 285; 215 C. 231.

Cited. 16 CA 245.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Bd. of Educ., 855 A.2d 212 (Conn. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Comm'n on Human Rights & Opportunities v. Bd. of Educ., 855 A.2d 212 (Conn. 2004). · cites it 4× “ceded to the United States"); General Statutes § 51-352c (b) ("town or judicial district.”
State v. Weinberg, 575 A.2d 1003 (Conn. 1990). · cites it 3× “The defendant also makes reference to General Statutes § 51-352c (a) that provides: “A criminal prosecution shall not fail by reason of the fact that the evidence may disclose the crime to have been committed in a town or judicial district adjoining that alleged in the…”
State v. Shane K., 322 A.3d 1094 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 17× “ourt incorrectly (a) concluded that the state constitution does not require a criminal defendant to be tried in the judicial district where the charged offense occurred and (b) applied General Statutes § 51-352c (a) and (b),3 and (2) failed 1 General Statutes § 53a-61 (a)…”
State v. Morrill, 498 A.2d 76 (Conn. 1985). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 51-352c (a) provides that “[a] criminal prosecution shall not fail by reason of the fact that the evidence may disclose the crime to have been committed in a town or judicial district adjoining that alleged in the indictment or information.”
State v. Amarillo, 503 A.2d 146 (Conn. 1986). · cites it 2× “In support of his position the defendant clearly misconstrues General Statutes § 51-352c, which provides: “If any person is accused of committing any offense on the boundary or divisional line between any towns or judicial districts in the state, or so near thereto as to render…”
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.