Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 971.19 (2026)
Place of trial
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
971.19(1)(1) Criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed, except as otherwise provided.
971.19(2)(2) Where 2 or more acts are requisite to the commission of any offense, the trial may be in any county in which any of such acts occurred.
971.19(3)(3) Where an offense is committed on or within one-fourth of a mile of the boundary of 2 or more counties, the defendant may be tried in any of such counties.
971.19(4)(4) If a crime is committed in, on or against any vehicle passing through or within this state, and it cannot readily be determined in which county the crime was committed, the defendant may be tried in any county through which such vehicle has passed or in the county where the defendant’s travel commenced or terminated.
971.19(5)(5) If the act causing death is in one county and the death ensues in another, the defendant may be tried in either county. If neither location can be determined, the defendant may be tried in the county where the body is found.
971.19(6)(6) If an offense is commenced outside the state and is consummated within the state, the defendant may be tried in the county where the offense was consummated.
971.19(7)(7) If a crime is committed on boundary waters at a place where 2 or more counties have common jurisdiction under s. 2.03 or 2.04 or under any other law, the prosecution may be in either county. The county whose process against the offender is first served shall be conclusively presumed to be the county in which the crime was committed.
971.19(8)(8) In an action for a violation of s. 948.31, the defendant may be tried in the county where the crime was committed or the county of lawful residence of the child.
971.19(9)(9) In an action under s. 301.45 (6) (a) or (ag), the defendant may be tried in the defendant’s county of residence at the time that the complaint is filed. If the defendant does not have a county of residence in this state at the time that the complaint is filed, or if the defendant’s county of residence is unknown at the time that the complaint is filed, the defendant may be tried in any of the following counties:
971.19(9)(b)(b) The county in which he or she was convicted, found not guilty or not responsible by reason of mental disease or defect or adjudicated delinquent for the sex offense that requires the person to register under s. 301.45.
971.19(9)(c)(c) If the defendant is required to register under s. 301.45 (1g) (dt), the county in which the person was found to be a sexually violent person under ch. 980.
971.19(9)(d)(d) If the person is required to register only under s. 301.45 (1g) (f) or (g), any county in which the person has been a student in this state or has been employed or carrying on a vocation in this state.
971.19(10)(10) In an action under s. 23.33 (2h), 23.335 (5m), 30.547, or 350.12 (3i) for intentionally falsifying an application for a certificate of number, a registration, or a certificate of title, the defendant may be tried in the defendant’s county of residence at the time that the complaint is filed, in the county where the defendant purchased the all-terrain vehicle, utility terrain vehicle, off-highway motorcycle, boat, or snowmobile if purchased from a dealer or the county where the department of natural resources received the application.
971.19(11)(11) In an action under s. 943.201, the defendant may be tried in the county where the victim or intended victim resided at the time of the offense or in any other county designated under this section. In an action under s. 943.203, the defendant may be tried in the county where the victim or intended victim was located at the time of the offense or in any other county designated under this section.
971.19(12)(12) Except as provided in s. 971.223, in an action for a violation of chs. 5 to 12, subch. III of ch. 13, or subch. III of ch. 19, or for a violation of any other law arising from or in relation to the official functions of the subject of the investigation or any matter that involves elections, ethics, or lobbying regulation under chs. 5 to 12, subch. III of ch. 13, or subch. III of ch. 19 a defendant who is a resident of this state shall be tried in circuit court for the county where the defendant resides. For purposes of this subsection, a person other than a natural person resides within a county if the person’s principal place of operation is located within that county.
971.19 HistoryHistory: 1987 a. 332; 1993 a. 98, 486; 1995 a. 440; 1997 a. 198; 1999 a. 89; 2003 a. 36; 2007 a. 1; 2009 a. 180; 2015 a. 89, 170; 2017 a. 365.
971.19 AnnotationWhen failure to file a registration form and the act of soliciting contributions were elements of the offense, venue was proper in either of the two counties under sub. (2). Blenski v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 685, 245 N.W.2d 906 (1976).
971.19 AnnotationA specific instruction on venue needs to be given only when venue is contested. State v. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, 261 Wis. 2d 633, 660 N.W.2d 12, 02-0395.
971.19 AnnotationIf any element of the crime charged occurred in a given county, then that county can be the place of trial. Because the crime of receiving stolen property requires more than two acts, and one of the acts is that the property must be stolen, venue is properly established in the county where that act occurred. State v. Lippold, 2008 WI App 130, 313 Wis. 2d 699, 757 N.W.2d 825, 07-1773.
971.19 AnnotationThe phrase “for a violation of any other law arising from or in relation to” in sub. (12) modifies both “the official functions of the subject of the investigation” and “any matter that involves elections, ethics, or lobbying regulation.” Accordingly, sub. (12) establishes venue in the county where the defendant resides for an alleged violation of any other law arising from or in relation to any matter that involves elections, ethics, or lobbying regulation. State v. Jensen, 2010 WI 38, 324 Wis. 2d 586, 782 N.W.2d 415, 08-0552.
971.19 AnnotationIn sub. (12), “regulation” modifies only “lobbying.” Because regulation modifies only the word lobbying, sub. (12) is not limited to violations of administrative regulations; rather, it encompasses violations of any matter that involves elections, ethics, and lobbying regulation. State v. Jensen, 2010 WI 38, 324 Wis. 2d 586, 782 N.W.2d 415, 08-0552.
971.19 AnnotationSub. (2) provides that, when two or more acts are requisite to the commission of any offense, the trial may be in any county in which any of the acts occurs. Venue is therefore appropriate in any county in which at least one of the alleged acts occurs when the charge is based on a continuous offense. State v. Elverman, 2015 WI App 91, 366 Wis. 2d 169, 873 N.W.2d 528, 14-0354.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: State v. Jensen, 2010 WI 38 (Wis. 2010).
State v. Jensen, 2010 WI 38 (Wis. 2010). “Jensen's (Jensen) *417 motion to change the venue of his criminal trial to Waukesha County Circuit Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.19 (12) (2007-08). [3] The issue presented is whether Waukesha County Circuit Court is the proper venue for Jensen's trial because it is the…”
State v. Anderson, 2005 WI 54 (Wis. 2005). “03 (1)(a) (1997-98), [1] such that the state has territorial jurisdiction over a charge of first-degree intentional homicide if an individual commits an act in Wisconsin manifesting an intent to kill; and 2) Whether a Wisconsin county where an act manifesting intent to kill…”
State v. Jensen, 2009 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “Scott Jensen appeals from an order denying his motion to transfer his criminal trial to the circuit court for Waukesha County under newly created Wis. Stat. § 971.19 (12) (2007-08). 1 Jensen argues that the trial court erred in concluding that this new venue statute does not…”
State v. Corey J.G., 572 N.W.2d 845 (Wis. 1998). “However, under Wis. Stat. § 971.19 , the proper venue in a criminal action is generally limited to the county in which the crime was committed.”
State Ex Rel. Two Unnamed v. Peterson, 2015 WI 85 (Wis. 2015). “See also Wis. Stat. §§ 971.19 (11)-(12) (providing that the venue for a criminal proceeding under campaign finance laws shall be the county of the defendant's residence unless the defendant chooses to be tried in the county where the crime occurred).”
State v. Bangert, 389 N.W.2d 12 (Wis. 1986). “[10] see, sec. 971.19(1), Stats., which provides: "(1) Criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed, except as otherwise provided.”
State v. Dennis Brantner, 2020 WI 21 (Wis. 2020). “Wis. Stat. § 971.19 (1) ("Criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed, except as otherwise provided.”
Blenski v. State, 245 N.W.2d 906 (Wis. 1976). “Section 971.19 (1), Stats., provides that the place of trial in a criminal action should be in the county where *691 the crime was committed, unless otherwise provided.”
State v. Oswald, 2000 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “" This assertion is proved, he contends, by the fact that in the juror questionnaires the potential jurors not only admitted media exposure, but also evidenced that they were "hopelessly infected with bias[ ].”
State v. Lippold, 2008 WI App 130 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “This court determined that the wording of Wis. Stat. § 971.19 (2) was crucial. See Swinson, 261 Wis.”
State v. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 971.19(2) provides: "Where 2 or more acts are requisite to the commission of any offense, the trial may be in any county in which any of such acts occurred.”
Theodore W. Oswald v. Daniel Bertrand, 374 F.3d 475 (7th Cir. 2004). “1, § 7; Wis. Stat. §§ 971.19 (1), 971.22; State v.”
— Wis. Stat. § 971.19(1) — 10 cases
State v. Anderson, 2005 WI 54 (Wis. 2005). “03 (1)(a) (1997-98), [1] such that the state has territorial jurisdiction over a charge of first-degree intentional homicide if an individual commits an act in Wisconsin manifesting an intent to kill; and 2) Whether a Wisconsin county where an act manifesting intent to kill…”
State v. Bangert, 389 N.W.2d 12 (Wis. 1986). “[10] see, sec. 971.19(1), Stats., which provides: "(1) Criminal actions shall be tried in the county where the crime was committed, except as otherwise provided.”
State v. Oswald, 2000 WI App 2 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). “" This assertion is proved, he contends, by the fact that in the juror questionnaires the potential jurors not only admitted media exposure, but also evidenced that they were "hopelessly infected with bias[ ].”
State v. Jensen, 2010 WI 38 (Wis. 2010). “Jensen's (Jensen) *417 motion to change the venue of his criminal trial to Waukesha County Circuit Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.19 (12) (2007-08). [3] The issue presented is whether Waukesha County Circuit Court is the proper venue for Jensen's trial because it is the…”
State v. Hereford, 592 N.W.2d 247 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.19(12) — 2 cases
State v. Jensen, 2010 WI 38 (Wis. 2010). “Jensen's (Jensen) *417 motion to change the venue of his criminal trial to Waukesha County Circuit Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.19 (12) (2007-08). [3] The issue presented is whether Waukesha County Circuit Court is the proper venue for Jensen's trial because it is the…”
State v. Jensen, 2009 WI App 26 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). “Scott Jensen appeals from an order denying his motion to transfer his criminal trial to the circuit court for Waukesha County under newly created Wis. Stat. § 971.19 (12) (2007-08). 1 Jensen argues that the trial court erred in concluding that this new venue statute does not…”
— Wis. Stat. § 971.19(2) — 6 cases
State v. Anderson, 2005 WI 54 (Wis. 2005). “03 (1)(a) (1997-98), [1] such that the state has territorial jurisdiction over a charge of first-degree intentional homicide if an individual commits an act in Wisconsin manifesting an intent to kill; and 2) Whether a Wisconsin county where an act manifesting intent to kill…”
State v. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 971.19(2) provides: "Where 2 or more acts are requisite to the commission of any offense, the trial may be in any county in which any of such acts occurred.”
State v. Cavallari, 571 N.W.2d 176 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Elverman, 2015 WI App 91 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Lippold, 2008 WI App 130 (Wis. Ct. App. 2008). “This court determined that the wording of Wis. Stat. § 971.19 (2) was crucial. See Swinson, 261 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 971.19(5) — 1 case
State v. Cassandra M. Staab (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.19(9) — 1 case
State v. Corey J.G., 572 N.W.2d 845 (Wis. 1998). “However, under Wis. Stat. § 971.19 , the proper venue in a criminal action is generally limited to the county in which the crime was committed.”
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.