November 16, 2006
"They were selling TiVo units on eBay. Welcome to the 21st Century."
When a footnote on page 2 of an opinion out of Division 3 of California's Fourth Appellate District states "They were selling TiVo units on eBay. Welcome to the 21st Century." you don't have to turn to the last page to know Justice Bedsworth authored the opinion.
Of greater legal significance, the Court held that when property is stolen in county A (Orange) and is received by the defendant in county B (L.A.) with knowledge that the property was stolen, venue lies in either county, even if the defendant did not know it was stolen from county A.
People v. Alvarado, no. G036766 (Cal.Ct.App. 4th Dist., Div. 3, filed 11/16/06).
Posted by Jonathan Soglin at 08:47 PM in Venue | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 22, 2004
Venue Is Question of Law for Judge
The California Supreme Court unanimously held today, in People v. Posey, no. S100360, that venue is a question of law for the trial judge to decide prior to trial. The Court held, however, that this was a new rule that could be applied prospectively only. Applying the now-former rule that venue is a jury question, the Court went on to find sufficient evidence of venue in the county of conviction (Marin) and no errors in the venue instructions. Justice Janice Brown (nominee to the D.C. Circuit) agreed with the majority on the question-of-law question and on retroactivity, but she dissented from the majority's application of the old rule. She found venue lacking: "My disagreement does not arise from any sympathy with defendant, who would likely have sold cocaine to the Man in the Moon, so long as he could deliver it within the friendly prosecutorial confines of San Francisco. However, I am concerned that by turning a blind eye to forum shopping by law enforcement authorities, the majority is inadvertently encouraging it."
Click here to read the Recorder's coverage of Posey. (Registration required.)
