Existing law provides that if more than one violation of certain specified offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, and the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses, jurisdiction for any of those offenses and any other properly joinable offenses may be in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred.

This bill would add the offenses of sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of specified offenses to which that jurisdictional preference applies.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 784.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1494 to be operative as specified.

Existing law provides that if more than one violation of certain specified offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, and the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses, jurisdiction for any of those offenses and any other properly joinable offenses may be in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred.

This bill would add the offenses of sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of specified offenses to which that jurisdictional preference applies.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 784.7 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1494 to be operative as specified.

Existing law provides that if more than one violation of certain specified offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, and the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses, jurisdiction for any of those offenses and any other properly joinable offenses may be in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred.

This bill would add the offenses of sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of specified offenses to which that jurisdictional preference applies.

Existing law provides that if more than one violation of certain specified offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, and the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses, jurisdiction for any of those offenses and any other properly joinable offenses may be in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred.

This bill would add the offenses of sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of specified offenses to which that jurisdictional preference applies.

Existing law provides that if more than one violation of certain specified offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, and the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses, jurisdiction for any of those offenses and any other properly joinable offenses may be in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred if all district attorneys in the counties with jurisdiction over any of the offenses agree to the venue. occurred.

This bill would add the offenses of sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of specified offenses to which that jurisdictional preference applies.

Existing law provides that if more than one violation of certain specified offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, jurisdiction for any of those offenses and any other properly joinable offenses may be in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred if all district attorneys in the counties with jurisdiction over any of the offenses agree to the venue.

This bill would add the offenses of sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of specified offenses to which that jurisdictional preference applies.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1746

Author:(Cervantes)

As Amended Ver:August 17, 2018

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.

SUMMARY: Adds sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses.

The Senate amendment double joints this bill with SB 1494 (Committee on Public Safety) of the current legislative session.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines territorial jurisdiction as the city, county, or township over which the criminal jurisdiction of the court extends, and the county in which the superior court sits.
2. States that jurisdiction of every public offense is in the court located in the territorial jurisdiction in which the offense is committed.
3. Provides a right to a jury trial in felony and misdemeanor cases.
4. Provides that persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction where the trial is held are not eligible to be jurors.
5. Provides that the California Constitution shall not be construed to prohibit the joining of criminal cases as prescribed by the Legislature.
6. Permits consolidation of different offenses which do not relate to same transaction or event if there is a common element of substantial importance in their commission, such as the same class of crimes, when two or more such accusatory pleadings are filed in the same court.
7. Permits consolidation of child abandonment, child neglect, or stalking offenses occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all the offenses.
8. Permits consolidation of felony human trafficking, pimping, or pandering offenses occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred if all the district attorneys agree to the venue. In determining whether the offenses should be tried in one jurisdiction, the court must 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.
9. Permits consolidation of felony sex offenses, including assault with attempt to commit rape, rape, spousal rape, sexual assault of a child, continuous sexual intercourse with a child, sexual intercourse with a child age 10 or younger, or forcible sexual penetration, occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, if all the district attorneys agree to the venue.
10. Defines sexual battery as touching of an intimate part of another person, against the will of the person touched, for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse. Sexual battery is punishable as follows:
    1. As a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000, or imprisonment county jail for not more than six months, or by both;
    2. As a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $3,000, if committed by an employer who against their employee;
    3. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment county jail for not more than one year, and by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, and by a fine not exceeding $10,000, if committed against a person who is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, or against a person who is institutionalized for medical treatment and seriously disabled or medically incapacitated, or if the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose; and,
    4. As a felony, punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three, or four years and a fine not exceeding $10,000, if committed against a minor by a person who has a prior sexual battery conviction.
11. Defines unlawful sexual intercourse as an act of sexual intercourse with a minor under age 18. Punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse is as follows:
    1. As a misdemeanor, if a person engages in sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator;
    2. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170(h), if a person engages in sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator;
    3. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment for two, three, or four years pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170(h), if a person age 21 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor under age 16;
    4. A civil penalty not exceeding $2,000, if a person age 18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult;
    5. A civil penalty not exceeding $5,000, if a person age 18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult;
    6. A civil penalty not to exceeding $10,000, if a person age18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult; and,
    7. A civil penalty not exceeding $25,000, if a person over age 21 engages in sexual intercourse with a minor under age 16.

AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill added sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. State prison: Unknown, potential increase in state costs for new commitments to state prison that otherwise would not have resulted in incarceration or as lengthy of a total sentence. To the extent that the provisions of this measure lead to even one additional commitment to state prison (or one additional year of commitment), it would result in additional per capita costs of $80,729 in the 2018-19 fiscal year to house that person in a state institution. (General Fund)
2. Court: Unknown, potential cost savings to the court in a reduction of separate cases to adjudicate if charges across multiple counties are consolidated into one case. (General Fund*)

*Trial Court Trust Fund

COMMENTS: According to the author, "Under current law, criminal prosecution for certain crimes can be consolidated into a single trial when multiple offenses are committed by the same perpetrator in more than one jurisdiction. These crimes include human trafficking, domestic violence, and child abuse.

"Much like perpetrators of those crimes, perpetrators of sexual battery or statutory rape are often serial offenders, and can commit multiple offenses across an entire region. However, under current law, prosecution of serial sexual battery or statutory rape cannot be consolidated into a single trial. This loophole could require a survivor of sexual battery or statutory rape to testify at multiple trials, and repeatedly have to relive the ordeal he or she endured. That experience could be especially traumatic for vulnerable survivors, especially children and minors. This may also involve several costly and time-consuming trials in multiple jurisdictions, which would delay the prosecution of these perpetrators.

"AB 1746 would close this loophole by making prosecutions of serial sexual battery or statutory rape eligible for consolidation into a single trial. This will protect survivors from having to testify about the trauma they endured at multiple trials, reduce court costs, and allow for the rendering of swift justice to the perpetrators of these heinous crimes."

Analysis Prepared by: Liah Burnley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0004451

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1746

Author:

Amended: 8/17/18 in Senate

Vote:

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/15/18

AYES: Skinner, Anderson, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Stone, Wiener

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/16/18

AYES: Portantino, Bates, Beall, Bradford, Hill, Nielsen, Wiener

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 4/5/18 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill adds sexual battery and statutory rape to the list of offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

States that, except as otherwise provided by law, the jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which it is committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.)

States that when a public offense is committed in part in one jurisdictional territory and in part in another, the jurisdiction of such offense is in any competent court within either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, § 781.)

1. States that if more than one violation of child abuse, domestic violence, or stalking, as specified, 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. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (b).)
2. States that sexual battery is the unlawful touching of an intimate body part of another person as specified and punishes the offense as an alternate felony-misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 243.4.)
3. Defines unlawful sexual intercourse, also commonly referred to as statutory rape, as an act of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 18 years and provides specified penalties ranging from a misdemeanor to an alternate felony-misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 261.5.)

This bill:

1. Adds sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses occurred if the defendant and victim are the same.
2. Includes amendments to avoid chaptering issues with SB 1494 (Senate Committee on Public Safety).

Background

1. Consolidation of Charges from Different Jurisdictions

The general rule in California is that an offense shall be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. If part of the commission of the crime occurs in one county but the crime is completed in another county, the proper jurisdiction is in either of the counties.

The Legislature has created several exceptions to the rule that the territorial jurisdiction of the case is where the offense occurred. [“The Legislature's power to designate the place for trial of a criminal offense is limited by the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship or nexus between the place designated for trial and the commission of the offense. Repeated abuse of the same child or spouse in more than one county creates that nexus.” (Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1075).]

These exceptions include specified domestic violence, child abuse, and stalking cases if the defendant and victim are the same for all of the offenses. This bill adds cases of sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse (statutory rape) to the list of exceptions.

1. Right to Jury Trial

The U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to be tried “by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law . . ..” (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.) The California Supreme Court has held that “[t]he Legislature may determine the venue for trial except to the extent the vicinage or due process provisions of the state or federal Constitution circumscribe that authority.” (Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal. 4th at p. 1056.)

Venue refers to the territorial jurisdiction in which a case may be brought to trial, in other words, the location where the trial is held. Vicinage is the right to trial by a jury drawn from residents of the area in which the charged offense allegedly was committed.

In Price v. Superior Court, supra, the California Supreme Court explained these concepts as applied to criminal prosecutions.

The concepts of venue and vicinage are closely related, as a jury pool ordinarily is selected from the area in which the trial is to be held. The concepts have different origins and purposes, however. Venue is historically significant from a national perspective because, as discussed below, the pre-Revolutionary practice of transporting colonists who were charged with crimes in the colonies to either England or other English colonies for trial was among the principal complaints of the colonists against England. Objections to that practice led to the inclusion of Article III, Section 2 in the United States Constitution. That provision limits the place of trial in federal criminal proceedings to the state in which the crime was committed. Most California venue statutes serve a similar purpose in reducing the potential burden on a defendant who might otherwise be required to stand trial in a distant location that is not reasonably related to the alleged criminal conduct.

. . . [T]he general rule of territorial jurisdiction over felonies is that stated in section 777: “except as otherwise provided by law the jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which it is committed.” Ordinarily the jurisdictional territory of a superior court is the county in which it sits. (Pen. Code, § 691, subd. (b).) Venue or territorial jurisdiction establishes the proper place for trial, but is not an aspect of the fundamental subject matter jurisdiction of the court and does not affect the power of a court to try a case.

When the Legislature creates an exception to the rule of section 777, the venue statute is remedial and for that reason is construed liberally to achieve the legislative purpose of expanding criminal jurisdiction. Section 784.7 is such an exception and the legislative purpose is clear. (People v. Price, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 1054-1056, internal citations omitted.)

As to the right of vicinage, the Supreme Court explained:

Because a vicinage guarantee does not serve the purpose of protecting a criminal defendant from government oppression and is not necessary to ensure a fair trial, it is not a necessary feature of the right to jury trial. For that reason we conclude that the vicinage clause of the Sixth Amendment is not applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. (Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal. 4th p. at 1065.)

Rather, the Court explained, the right of vicinage in California is derived from the right to a jury trial guaranteed in the California Constitution and is effectively limited to a requirement that there be a reasonable nexus between the crime and the county of trial:

The right to a trial by a jury of the vicinage, as guaranteed by the California Constitution, is not violated by trial in county having a reasonable relationship to the offense or to other crimes committed by the defendant against the same victim. We do not hold here that a crime may be tried anywhere. The Legislature’s power to designate the place for trial of a criminal offense is limited by the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship or nexus between the place designated for trial and the commission of the offense. Repeated abuse of the same child or spouse in more than one county creates that nexus. The venue authorized by Penal Code section 784.7 is not arbitrary. It is reasonable for the Legislature to conclude that this pattern of conduct is akin to a continuing offense and to conclude that the victim and other witnesses should not be burdened with having to testify in multiple trials in different counties. (Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.4th. at p. 1075.)

As discussed in Price, the multicounty venue statute (Pen. Code, § 784.7) should be liberally construed to achieve the legislative purpose of expanding criminal jurisdiction, limited by the requirement of a reasonable nexus between the crime and the county of trial – repeated abuse of the same person in more than one county satisfies that nexus. This bill allows consolidation of sexual battery and statutory rape offenses that occurred in multiple counties if the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• State prison: Unknown, potential increase in state costs for new commitments to state prison that otherwise would not have resulted in incarceration or as lengthy of a total sentence. To the extent that the provisions of this measure lead to even one additional commitment to state prison (or one additional year of commitment), it would result in additional per capita costs of $80,729 in the 2018-19 fiscal year to house that person in a state institution. (General Fund)
• Court: Unknown, potential cost savings to the court in a reduction of separate cases to adjudicate if charges across multiple counties are consolidated into one case. (General Fund*)

*Trial Court Trust Fund

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/16/18)

California District Attorneys Association

California State Sheriffs’ Association

Crime Victims United

Riverside Sheriffs’ Association

San Diego County District Attorney’s Office

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/16/18)

California Public Defenders Association

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 69-0, 4/5/18

AYES: Acosta, Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Baker, Berman, Bigelow, Bloom, Bonta, Brough, Burke, Caballero, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chávez, Chen, Chiu, Choi, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Cunningham, Dahle, Daly, Eggman, Flora, Fong, Frazier, Friedman, Gallagher, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gray, Grayson, Harper, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kiley, Lackey, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, McCarty, Medina, Melendez, Nazarian, Obernolte, Patterson, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Rodriguez, Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Voepel, Waldron, Weber, Rendon

NO VOTE RECORDED: Travis Allen, Cristina Garcia, Gonzalez Fletcher, Mullin, Muratsuchi, O'Donnell, Steinorth, Wood

Prepared by:

8/20/18 9:57:48

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

AB 1746 (Cervantes) - Criminal procedure: jurisdiction of public offenses

Bill Summary:

AB 1746 would allow specified sex-related offenses that allegedly happened in multiple counties to be consolidated into a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses allegedly occurred if the defendant and victim are the same for all of the offenses.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 16, 2018

Fiscal Impact:

• State prison: Unknown, potential increase in state costs for new commitments to state prison that otherwise would not have resulted in incarceration or as lengthy of a total sentence. To the extent that the provisions of this measure lead to even one additional commitment to state prison (or one additional year of commitment), it would result in additional per capita costs of $80,729 in the 2018-19 fiscal year to house that person in a state institution. (General Fund)
• Court: Unknown, potential cost savings to the court in a reduction of separate cases to adjudicate if charges across multiple counties are consolidated into one case. (General Fund*)

*Trial Court Trust Fund

Author Amendments:

Address chaptering conflicts.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular Session

AB 1746 (Cervantes) - Criminal procedure: jurisdiction of public offenses

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 1746 would allow specified sex-related offenses that allegedly happened in multiple counties to be consolidated into a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses allegedly occurred if the defendant and victim are the same for all of the offenses.

Fiscal Impact:

• State prison: Unknown, potential increase in state costs for new commitments to state prison that otherwise would not have resulted in incarceration or as lengthy of a total sentence. To the extent that the provisions of this measure lead to even one additional commitment to state prison (or one additional year of commitment), it would result in additional per capita costs of $80,729 in the 2018-19 fiscal year to house that person in a state institution. (General Fund)
• Court: Unknown, potential cost savings to the court in a reduction of separate cases to adjudicate if charges across multiple counties are consolidated into one case. (General Fund*)

*Trial Court Trust Fund

Background:

The general rule in California is that the district attorney prosecutes an offense in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. If part of the commission of the crime occurs in one county but the crime is completed in another county, the proper jurisdiction is in either of the counties. There are, however, a number of exceptions to the rule that the territorial jurisdiction of the case is where the offense occurred. These exceptions include certain sex crimes, domestic violence, child abuse, and human trafficking cases. For these offenses, existing law provides that when more than one violation of certain specified offenses occurs in more than one jurisdictional territory, jurisdiction for any of those offenses and any other properly joinable offenses may be in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred if all district attorneys in the counties with jurisdiction over any of the offenses agree to the venue. For sex offense cases, the court has ruled that the alleged violations do not have to be of the same offense for the cases to be consolidated, as these offenses belong to the same class of crimes. (People v. Nguyen (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1096.)

Proposed Law:

This bill would allow charges of sexual battery and statutory rape that allegedly occurred in multiple counties to be tried in one county, along with properly-joinable offenses, where at least one of the offenses allegedly occurred if the defendant and victim are the same for all of the offenses.

Related Legislation:

AB 2734 (Pacheco, Ch. 302, Stats. 1998) permitted jurisdiction for specified felony sex crimes occurring in two or more jurisdictions in any jurisdiction where at least one offense occurred, if the defendant and the victim were the same for all the offenses. AB 2252 (Cohn, Ch. 194, Stats. 2002), SB 939 (Block, Ch. 246, Stats. 2014), and AB 368 (Muratsuchi, Ch. 379, Stats. 2017) each added various felony sex crime charges that were alleged to happen in multiple jurisdictions to the list of offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial in a jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses allegedly occurred. AB 2252 also deleted the requirement that the consolidated charges involve the same victim for specified charges.

Staff Comments:

The fiscal impact of this bill cannot be known with certainty, as the actual impact will be dependent on numerous factors, including, but not limited to, judicial and prosecutorial discretion, the criminal history of the defendant, and the factors unique to each case. For example, in one county, a court may sentence a defendant found guilty of, or a district attorney may agree to a plea deal for, a sex crime that results in the avoidance of a commitment to state prison (e.g., when the sentence includes a period of probation with counseling or other rehabilitative programs or services or the crime is an alternate felony-misdemeanor). In another county, because of differing judicial or prosecutorial philosophies or some other reasons, that same defendant found guilty of the same crime would have no other practical alternative to a sentence to state prison. If cases from counties with differing sentencing practices were consolidated into one case in a county with stricter sentencing practice, it could result in additional counts of convictions (e.g., by rejecting plea deals that would lead to the dismissal of certain counts in place of the conviction of others) and additional and/or longer prison sentences. Consequently, by increasing the list of sex crimes that may be consolidated into a single case, this bill potentially could result in an increase in commitment length, with the attendant costs, to state prison.

California is subject to a federal court order to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5 percent of design capacity.  The state has undertaken efforts to implement a durable remedy to reduce and avoid prison overcrowding.  On June 6, 2018, 114,881 inmates were housed in the state’s thirty-five adult institutions, 6,336 were housed in in-state contract beds, and 3,014 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.  The prison population changes daily as new inmates are admitted and others are released, but, on that date, the state’s prison population was approximately 135.0 percent of design capacity. By potentially increasing the length of incarceration, this bill could result in an increase of the inmate population in in-state institutions and exacerbate overcrowding.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2017 - 2018 Regular

Bill No: AB 1746 Hearing Date: May 15, 2018

Subject: Criminal Procedure: Jurisdiction of Public Offenses

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: AB 368 (Muratsuchi), Ch. 379, Stats. 2017

SB 939 (Block), Ch. 246, Stats. 2014

AB 2252 (Cohn), Ch. 194, Stats. 2002

AB 2734 (Pacheco), Ch. 302, Stats. 1998

Support: California District Attorneys Association; California State Sheriffs’ Association; Crime Victims United; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association; San Diego County District Attorney’s Office

Opposition: California Public Defenders Association

Assembly Floor Vote: 69 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to add sexual battery and statutory rape to the list of offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses.

Existing law states that, except as otherwise provided by law, the jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which it is committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.)

Existing law states that when a public offense is committed in part in one jurisdictional territory and in part in another, the jurisdiction of such offense is in any competent court within either jurisdiction. (Pen. Code, § 781.)

Existing law states that if more than one violation of child abuse, domestic violence, or stalking, as specified, 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. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (b).)

Existing law states that sexual battery is the unlawful touching of an intimate body part of another person as specified and punishes the offense as an alternate felony-misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 243.4.)

Existing law defines unlawful sexual intercourse, also commonly referred to as statutory rape, as an act of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 18 years and provides specified penalties ranging from a misdemeanor to an alternate felony-misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 261.5.)

This bill adds sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses occurred if the defendant and victim are the same.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author of this bill:

Under current law, criminal prosecution for certain crimes can be consolidated into a single trial when multiple offenses are committed by the same perpetrator in more than one jurisdiction. These crimes include human trafficking, domestic violence, and child abuse.

Much like perpetrators of those crimes, perpetrators of sexual battery or statutory rape are often serial offenders, and can commit multiple offenses across an entire region. However, under current law, prosecution of serial sexual battery or statutory rape cannot be consolidated into a single trial. This loophole could require a survivor of sexual battery or statutory rape to testify at multiple trials, and repeatedly have to relive the ordeal he or she endured. That experience could be especially traumatic for vulnerable survivors, especially children and minors. This may also involve several costly and time-consuming trials in multiple jurisdictions, which would delay the prosecution of these perpetrators.

2. Consolidation of Charges from Different Jurisdictions

The general rule in California is that an offense shall be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. If part of the commission of the crime occurs in one county but the crime is completed in another county, the proper jurisdiction is in either of the counties.

The Legislature has created several exceptions to the rule that the territorial jurisdiction of the case is where the offense occurred. [“The Legislature's power to designate the place for trial of a criminal offense is limited by the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship or nexus between the place designated for trial and the commission of the offense. Repeated abuse of the same child or spouse in more than one county creates that nexus.” (Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1075).]

These exceptions include specified domestic violence, child abuse, and stalking cases if the defendant and victim are the same for all of the offenses. This bill adds cases of sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse (statutory rape) to the list of exceptions.

3. Right to Jury Trial

The U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to be tried “by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law . . ..” (U.S. Const., 6th Amend.) The California Supreme Court has held that “[t]he Legislature may determine the venue for trial except to the extent the vicinage or due process provisions of the state or federal Constitution circumscribe that authority.” (Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal. 4th at p. 1056.)

Venue refers to the territorial jurisdiction in which a case may be brought to trial, in other words, the location where the trial is held. Vicinage is the right to trial by a jury drawn from residents of the area in which the charged offense allegedly was committed.

In Price v. Superior Court, supra, the California Supreme Court explained these concepts as applied to criminal prosecutions.

The concepts of venue and vicinage are closely related, as a jury pool ordinarily is selected from the area in which the trial is to be held. The concepts have different origins and purposes, however. Venue is historically significant from a national perspective because, as discussed below, the pre-Revolutionary practice of transporting colonists who were charged with crimes in the colonies to either England or other English colonies for trial was among the principal complaints of the colonists against England. Objections to that practice led to the inclusion of Article III, Section 2 in the United States Constitution. That provision limits the place of trial in federal criminal proceedings to the state in which the crime was committed. Most California venue statutes serve a similar purpose in reducing the potential burden on a defendant who might otherwise be required to stand trial in a distant location that is not reasonably related to the alleged criminal conduct.

. . . [T]he general rule of territorial jurisdiction over felonies is that stated in section 777: “except as otherwise provided by law the jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which it is committed.” Ordinarily the jurisdictional territory of a superior court is the county in which it sits. (Pen. Code, § 691, subd. (b).) Venue or territorial jurisdiction establishes the proper place for trial, but is not an aspect of the fundamental subject matter jurisdiction of the court and does not affect the power of a court to try a case.

When the Legislature creates an exception to the rule of section 777, the venue statute is remedial and for that reason is construed liberally to achieve the legislative purpose of expanding criminal jurisdiction. Section 784.7 is such an exception and the legislative purpose is clear. (People v. Price, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 1054-1056, internal citations omitted.)

As to the right of vicinage, the Supreme Court explained:

Because a vicinage guarantee does not serve the purpose of protecting a criminal defendant from government oppression and is not necessary to ensure a fair trial, it is not a necessary feature of the right to jury trial. For that reason we conclude that the vicinage clause of the Sixth Amendment is not applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. (Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal. 4th p. at 1065.)

Rather, the Court explained, the right of vicinage in California is derived from the right to a jury trial guaranteed in the California Constitution and is effectively limited to a requirement that there be a reasonable nexus between the crime and the county of trial:

The right to a trial by a jury of the vicinage, as guaranteed by the California Constitution, is not violated by trial in county having a reasonable relationship to the offense or to other crimes committed by the defendant against the same victim. We do not hold here that a crime may be tried anywhere. The Legislature’s power to designate the place for trial of a criminal offense is limited by the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship or nexus between the place designated for trial and the commission of the offense. Repeated abuse of the same child or spouse in more than one county creates that nexus. The venue authorized by Penal Code section 784.7 is not arbitrary. It is reasonable for the Legislature to conclude that this pattern of conduct is akin to a continuing offense and to conclude that the victim and other witnesses should not be burdened with having to testify in multiple trials in different counties. (Price v. Superior Court, supra, 25 Cal.4th. at p. 1075.)

As discussed in Price, the multicounty venue statute (Pen. Code, § 784.7) should be liberally construed to achieve the legislative purpose of expanding criminal jurisdiction, limited by the requirement of a reasonable nexus between the crime and the county of trial – repeated abuse of the same person in more than one county satisfies that nexus. This bill allows consolidation of sexual battery and statutory rape offenses that occurred in multiple counties if the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses.

-- END –

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1746

Author:(Cervantes)

As Amended Ver:March 19, 2018

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Adds sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines territorial jurisdiction as the city, county, or township over which the criminal jurisdiction of the court extends, and the county in which the superior court sits.
2. States that jurisdiction of every public offense is in the court located in the territorial jurisdiction in which the offense is committed.
3. Provides a right to a jury trial in felony and misdemeanor cases.
4. Provides that persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction where the trial is held are not eligible to be jurors.
5. Provides that the California Constitution shall not be construed to prohibit the joining of criminal cases as prescribed by the Legislature.
6. Permits consolidation of different offenses which do not relate to same transaction or event if there is a common element of substantial importance in their commission, such as the same class of crimes, when two or more such accusatory pleadings are filed in the same court.
7. Permits consolidation of child abandonment, child neglect, or stalking offenses occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all the offenses.
8. Permits consolidation of felony human trafficking, pimping, or pandering offenses occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred if all the district attorneys agree to the venue. In determining whether the offenses should be tried in one jurisdiction, the court must 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.
9. Permits consolidation of felony sex offenses, including assault with attempt to commit rape, rape, spousal rape, sexual assault of a child, continuous sexual intercourse with a child, sexual intercourse with a child age 10 or younger, or forcible sexual penetration, occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, if all the district attorneys agree to the venue.
10. Defines sexual battery as touching of an intimate part of another person, against the will of the person touched, for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse. Sexual battery is punishable as follows:
    1. As a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000, or imprisonment county jail for not more than six months, or by both;
    2. As a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $3,000, if committed by an employer who against their employee;
    3. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment county jail for not more than one year, and by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, and by a fine not exceeding $10,000, if committed against a person who is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, or against a person who is institutionalized for medical treatment and seriously disabled or medically incapacitated, or if the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose; and,
    4. As a felony, punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three, or four years and a fine not exceeding $10,000, if committed against a minor by a person who has a prior sexual battery conviction.
11. Defines unlawful sexual intercourse as an act of sexual intercourse with a minor under age 18. Punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse is as follows:
    1. As a misdemeanor, if a person engages in sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator;
    2. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170(h), if a person engages in sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator;
    3. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment for two, three, or four years pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170(h), if a person age 21 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor under age 16;
    4. A civil penalty not exceeding $2,000, if a person age 18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult;
    5. A civil penalty not exceeding $5,000, if a person age 18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult;
    6. A civil penalty not to exceeding $10,000, if a person age18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult; and,
    7. A civil penalty not exceeding $25,000, if a person over age 21 engages in sexual intercourse with a minor under age 16.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: According to the author,

Under current law, criminal prosecution for certain crimes can be consolidated into a single trial when multiple offenses are committed by the same perpetrator in more than one jurisdiction. These crimes include human trafficking, domestic violence, and child abuse.

Much like perpetrators of those crimes, perpetrators of sexual battery or statutory rape are often serial offenders, and can commit multiple offenses across an entire region. However, under current law, prosecution of serial sexual battery or statutory rape cannot be consolidated into a single trial. This loophole could require a survivor of sexual battery or statutory rape to testify at multiple trials, and repeatedly have to relive the ordeal he or she endured. That experience could be especially traumatic for vulnerable survivors, especially children and minors. This may also involve several costly and time-consuming trials in multiple jurisdictions, which would delay the prosecution of these perpetrators.

AB 1746 would close this loophole by making prosecutions of serial sexual battery or statutory rape eligible for consolidation into a single trial. This will protect survivors from having to testify about the trauma they endured at multiple trials, reduce court costs, and allow for the rendering of swift justice to the perpetrators of these heinous crimes.

Analysis Prepared by: Liah Burnley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002610

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1746

Author:(Cervantes)

As Introduced Ver:January 3, 2018

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Adds sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines territorial jurisdiction as the city, county, or township over which the criminal jurisdiction of the court extends, and the county in which the superior court sits.
2. States that jurisdiction of every public offense is in the court located in the territorial jurisdiction in which the offense is committed.
3. Provides a right to a jury trial in felony and misdemeanor cases.
4. Provides that persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction where the trial is held are not eligible to be jurors.
5. Provides that the California Constitution shall not be construed to prohibit the joining of criminal cases as prescribed by the Legislature.
6. Permits consolidation of different offenses which do not relate to same transaction or event if there is a common element of substantial importance in their commission, such as the same class of crimes, when two or more such accusatory pleadings are filed in the same court.
7. Permits consolidation of child abandonment, child neglect, or stalking offenses occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all the offenses.
8. Permits consolidation of felony human trafficking, pimping, or pandering offenses occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred if all the district attorneys agree to the venue. In determining whether the offenses should be tried in one jurisdiction, the court must 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.
9. Permits consolidation of felony sex offenses, including assault with attempt to commit rape, rape, spousal rape, sexual assault of a child, continuous sexual intercourse with a child, sexual intercourse with a child age 10 or younger, or forcible sexual penetration, occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, if all the district attorneys agree to the venue.
10. Defines sexual battery as touching of an intimate part of another person, against the will of the person touched, for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse. Sexual battery is punishable as follows:
    1. As a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000, or imprisonment county jail for not more than six months, or by both;
    2. As a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $3,000, if committed by an employer who against their employee;
    3. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment county jail for not more than one year, and by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, and by a fine not exceeding $10,000, if committed against a person who is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, or against a person who is institutionalized for medical treatment and seriously disabled or medically incapacitated, or if the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose; and,
    4. As a felony, punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three, or four years and a fine not exceeding $10,000, if committed against a minor by a person who has a prior sexual battery conviction.
11. Defines unlawful sexual intercourse as an act of sexual intercourse with a minor under age 18. Punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse is as follows:
    1. As a misdemeanor, if a person engages in sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator;
    2. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170(h), if a person engages in sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator;
    3. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment for two, three, or four years pursuant to Penal Code Section 1170(h), if a person age 21 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor under age 16;
    4. A civil penalty not exceeding $2,000, if a person age 18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult;
    5. A civil penalty not exceeding $5,000, if a person age 18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult;
    6. A civil penalty not to exceeding $10,000, if a person age18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult; and,
    7. A civil penalty not exceeding $25,000, if a person over age 21 engages in sexual intercourse with a minor under age 16.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS: According to the author,

Under current law, criminal prosecution for certain crimes can be consolidated into a single trial when multiple offenses are committed by the same perpetrator in more than one jurisdiction. These crimes include human trafficking, domestic violence, and child abuse.

Much like perpetrators of those crimes, perpetrators of sexual battery or statutory rape are often serial offenders, and can commit multiple offenses across an entire region. However, under current law, prosecution of serial sexual battery or statutory rape cannot be consolidated into a single trial. This loophole could require a survivor of sexual battery or statutory rape to testify at multiple trials, and repeatedly have to relive the ordeal he or she endured. That experience could be especially traumatic for vulnerable survivors, especially children and minors. This may also involve several costly and time-consuming trials in multiple jurisdictions, which would delay the prosecution of these perpetrators.

AB 1746 would close this loophole by making prosecutions of serial sexual battery or statutory rape eligible for consolidation into a single trial. This will protect survivors from having to testify about the trauma they endured at multiple trials, reduce court costs, and allow for the rendering of swift justice to the perpetrators of these heinous crimes.

Analysis Prepared by: Liah Burnley / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0002598

Date of Hearing: March 6, 2018

Counsel: Liah Burnley

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

As Proposed to be Amended in Commitee

SUMMARY:

Adds sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial in any county where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all of the offenses.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines territorial jurisdiction as the city, county, or township over which the criminal jurisdiction of the court extends, and the county in which the superior court sits. (Pen. Code, § 691(b).)
2. States that jurisdiction of every public offense is in the court located in the territorial jurisdiction in which the offense is committed. (Pen. Code, § 777.)
3. Provides a right to a jury trial in felony and misdemeanor cases. (Cal. Const., art I § 16.)
4. Provides that persons who are not residents of the jurisdiction where the trial is held are not eligible to be jurors. (Civ. Code, § 203, subd. (a)(4).)
5. Provides that the California Constitution shall not be construed to prohibit the joining of criminal cases as prescribed by the Legislature. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 30, subd. (a).)
6. Permits consolidation of different offenses which do not relate to same transaction or event if there is a common element of substantial importance in their commission, such as the same class of crimes, when two or more such accusatory pleadings are filed in the same court. (Pen. Code, § 954.)
   
7. Permits consolidation of child abandonment, child neglect, or stalking offenses occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all the offenses. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (b).)
8. Permits consolidation of felony human trafficking, pimping, or pandering offenses occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred if all the district attorneys agree to the venue. In determining whether the offenses should be tried in one jurisdiction, the court must 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. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (c).)
9. Permits consolidation of felony sex offenses, including assault with attempt to commit rape, rape, spousal rape, sexual assault of a child, continuous sexual intercourse with a child, sexual intercourse with a child age 10 or younger, or forcible sexual penetration, occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, if all the district attorneys agree to the venue. (Pen. Code, § 784.7, subd. (a).)
10. Permits consolidation of unauthorized use of personal identifying information offenses occurring in two or more jurisdictions, if all the district attorneys agree to the venue. In determining whether the offenses should be tried in one jurisdiction, the court must consider the location and complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, whether the offenses involved substantially similar activity or the same scheme, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of, or hardship to, the victim or victims and witnesses. (Pen. Code, §786, subd. (b)(2).)
11. Permits consolidation of unauthorized distribution of an intimate image occurring in two or more jurisdictions, if all the district attorneys agree to the venue. In determining whether the offenses should be tried in one jurisdiction, the court must consider the location and complexity of the likely evidence, where the majority of the offenses occurred, whether the offenses involved substantially similar activity or the same scheme, the rights of the defendant and the people, and the convenience of, or hardship to, the victim or victims and witnesses. (Pen. Code, §786, subd. (c)(2).)
12. Permits consolidation of terrorist attack offenses occurring in occurring in two or more jurisdictions, in any jurisdiction where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the offenses are part of a single scheme or terrorist attack. (Pen. Code, §787.)
13. Permits consolidation of murder in the first or second degree offenses occurring in two or more jurisdictions in the jurisdiction where a fatal injury inflicted, where an injured party died, or where a body was found, if the charged murders are connected together in their commission. (Pen. Code, §790, subd. (b).)
14. Defines sexual battery as touching of an intimate part of another person, against the will of the person touched, for the specific purpose of sexual arousal, sexual gratification, or sexual abuse. Sexual battery is punishable as follows:
    
    1. As a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,000, or imprisonment county jail for not more than six months, or by both;
    2. As a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not exceeding $3,000, if committed by an employer who against their employee;
       
    3. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment county jail for not more than one year, and by a fine not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, and by a fine not exceeding $10,000, if committed against a person who is unlawfully restrained by the accused or an accomplice, or against a person who is institutionalized for medical treatment and seriously disabled or medically incapacitated, or if the perpetrator fraudulently represented that the touching served a professional purpose; and,
       
    4. As a felony, punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three, or four years and a fine not exceeding $10,000, if committed against a minor by a person who has a prior sexual battery conviction. (Pen. Code, § 243.4.)
15. Defines unlawful sexual intercourse as an act of sexual intercourse with a minor under age 18. Punishment for unlawful sexual intercourse is as follows:
    
    1. As a misdemeanor, if a person engages in sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator;
    2. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to section 1170(h), if a person engages in sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator;
    3. As a misdemeanor or felony, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment for two, three, or four years pursuant to section 1170(h), if a person age 21 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor under age 16;
    4. A civil penalty not exceeding $2,000, if a person age 18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult;
    5. A civil penalty not exceeding $5,000, if a person age 18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult;
    6. A civil penalty not to exceeding $10,000, if a person age18 or older engages in sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult; and,
    7. A civil penalty not exceeding $25,000, if a person over age 21 engages in sexual intercourse with a minor under age 16. (Pen. Code, § 261.5.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown.

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “Under current law, criminal prosecution for certain crimes can be consolidated into a single trial when multiple offenses are committed by the same perpetrator in more than one jurisdiction. These crimes include human trafficking, domestic violence, and child abuse.

“Much like perpetrators of those crimes, perpetrators of sexual battery or statutory rape are often serial offenders, and can commit multiple offenses across an entire region. However, under current law, prosecution of serial sexual battery or statutory rape cannot be consolidated into a single trial. This loophole could require a survivor of sexual battery or statutory rape to testify at multiple trials, and repeatedly have to relive the ordeal he or she endured. That experience could be especially traumatic for vulnerable survivors, especially children and minors. This may also involve several costly and time-consuming trials in multiple jurisdictions, which would delay the prosecution of these perpetrators.

“AB 1746 would close this loophole by making prosecutions of serial sexual battery or statutory rape eligible for consolidation into a single trial. This will protect survivors from having to testify about the trauma they endured at multiple trials, reduce court costs, and allow for the rendering of swift justice to the perpetrators of these heinous crimes.”

1. Territorial Jurisdiction and Vicinage: Territorial jurisdiction is the location in which a case may be brought to trial. Ordinarily, the territorial jurisdiction of a superior court is the county in which it sits. (Pen. Code, § 691, subd. (b).) The general rule of territorial jurisdiction is stated in section 777: “except as otherwise provided by law the jurisdiction of every public offense is in any competent court within the jurisdictional territory of which it is committed.” When the Legislature creates an exception to the rule of section 777, the statute is remedial and is construed liberally to achieve the legislative purpose of expanding criminal jurisdiction. (Price v. Superior Court (2001), 25 Cal. 4th 1046, 1055.)

Vicinage is the right to trial by a jury drawn from residents of the area where the offense was committed. Venue and vicinage are closely related, as a jury pool is selected from the area in which the trial is to be held. Vicinage is not a necessary feature to the right of a jury trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it “does not serve the purpose of protecting a criminal defendant from government oppression and is not necessary to ensure a fair trial.” (Price, supra, 25 Cal. 4th 1046, 1065-1069.) This does not mean that a state has the right to try a defendant anywhere it chooses. (Id. at p. 1050.) Rather, the right of vicinage in California is derived from the right to jury trial as guaranteed in the California Constitution. (Ibid.) As the Supreme Court explained, the right to a trial by a jury of the vicinage, as guaranteed by the California Constitution, requires trial in a county that has a reasonable relationship to the offense or to other crimes committed by the defendant against the same victim. (Id. at p. 1075.) Thus, the Legislature’s power to designate the place for trial of a criminal offense is limited by the requirement that there be a reasonable relationship or nexus between the place designated for trial and the commission of the offense. (Ibid.)

The Legislature has created several exceptions to the general rule that a case must be tried in the jurisdiction where the offense was committed if a defendant commits multiple offenses in different jurisdictions. With the exception of subdivision (a) of section 784.7, all of the existing laws permitting consolidation specify the nexus required between the commission of the out-of-county offense and the place designated for trial. (See e.g., § 784.7, subd., (b) - (c); § 786 subd., (b)(2); § 786 subd., (c)(2); § 787; and § 790 subd., (b), requiring that the defendant and the victim be the same for all joined offenses, that the offenses be connected together in their commission, that the offenses be part of a single scheme, or that the court to 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.)

Section 784.7 subdivision (b), an exception to the general rule of territorial jurisdiction, creates a venue for trial of specified offenses, in any county where at least one of the offenses occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all offenses. These offenses include child abandonment and neglect, domestic violence, and stalking.

This bill would add the crimes of sexual battery and unlawful sexual intercourse to the list of offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial.

1. Arguments in Support: According to Riverside Sheriff’s Association, “Under existing law, certain crimes that allegedly occurred across multiple jurisdictions are eligible for consolidation into a single criminal trial. AB 1746 would expand the list of crimes that are eligible for consolidation to include sexual battery and statutory rape.”
   
2. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 368 (Muratsuchi), Chapter 379, Statutes of 2017, added felony sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation or sexual penetration with a child 10 years of age or younger occurring in two or more jurisdictions to the list of applicable offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial.
   2. SB 939 (Block), Chapter 246, Statutes of 2014, added felony human trafficking-related charges occurring in two or more jurisdictions to the list of applicable offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial.
   3. AB 2252 (Cohn), Chapter 194, Statutes of 2002, added specified felony sex crimes to the list of applicable offenses that may be consolidated in a single trial, required the prosecution to present evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction of the offenses agree to the venue, and deleted the requirement that the consolidated offenses involve the same victim.
   4. AB 2734 (Pacheco), Chapter 302, Statutes of 1998, permitted jurisdiction for specified felony sex crimes occurring in two or more jurisdictions in any jurisdiction where at least one offense occurred, if the defendant and the victim were the same for all the offenses.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California State Sheriff’s Association

California District Attorneys Association

Riverside Sheriff’s Association

Opposition

California Public Defenders Association

Analysis Prepared by: