Oregon Supreme Court - October 17, 2013
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
by: Alex Flood and Abassos • October 18, 2013 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> *Venue is No Longer an Element of a Crime. It is a jurisdictional issue. * </summary> Venue is a jurisdictional issue, not an element of the crime. Thus, it...") |
|||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | '''Venue is No Longer an Element of a Crime. It is a jurisdictional issue.''' | ||
Venue is a jurisdictional issue, not an element of the crime. Thus, it needs to be alleged pre-trial, prior to jeopardy attaching. Pushing aside stare decisis, a unanimous court sitting en banc, finds that venue cannot be an element of the crime because: | Venue is a jurisdictional issue, not an element of the crime. Thus, it needs to be alleged pre-trial, prior to jeopardy attaching. Pushing aside stare decisis, a unanimous court sitting en banc, finds that venue cannot be an element of the crime because: | ||
:1. Article I, Section 11 says nothing about either venue being a material allegation or matters of proof for any of the listed rights. | :1. Article I, Section 11 says nothing about either venue being a material allegation or matters of proof for any of the listed rights. | ||
:2. Historically, the common law venue cases are about the jurisdiction of the court, not venue as a material allegation. | :2. Historically, the common law venue cases are about the jurisdiction of the court, not venue as a material allegation. | ||
− | :3. Constitutionally, venue provisions | + | :3. Constitutionally, venue provisions arose out of anger at England for transporting treason cases to England for trial. |
Summarizing these issues, the court says: | Summarizing these issues, the court says: | ||
− | :"We are left, then, with constitutional wording that even defendant concedes says nothing about requiring proof of venue as a material element of the state's case, as well as contemporaneous history that fails even to hint at the possibility that the constitution was intended to have that effect. | + | :"We are left, then, with constitutional wording that even defendant concedes says nothing about requiring proof of venue as a material element of the state's case, as well as contemporaneous history that fails even to hint at the possibility that the constitution was intended to have that effect." [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060485.pdf State v Mills], ___ Or ___ (10/17/13) |
Revision as of 13:25, October 19, 2013
Venue is No Longer an Element of a Crime. It is a jurisdictional issue.
Venue is a jurisdictional issue, not an element of the crime. Thus, it needs to be alleged pre-trial, prior to jeopardy attaching. Pushing aside stare decisis, a unanimous court sitting en banc, finds that venue cannot be an element of the crime because:
- 1. Article I, Section 11 says nothing about either venue being a material allegation or matters of proof for any of the listed rights.
- 2. Historically, the common law venue cases are about the jurisdiction of the court, not venue as a material allegation.
- 3. Constitutionally, venue provisions arose out of anger at England for transporting treason cases to England for trial.
Summarizing these issues, the court says:
- "We are left, then, with constitutional wording that even defendant concedes says nothing about requiring proof of venue as a material element of the state's case, as well as contemporaneous history that fails even to hint at the possibility that the constitution was intended to have that effect." State v Mills, ___ Or ___ (10/17/13)