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
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
'''Venue is No Longer an Element of a Crime. It is a jurisdictional issue.''' | '''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 | + | 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 prior cases indicating that venue is an element of the crime were a mistake and should be overruled: |
: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 arose out of anger at England for transporting treason cases to England for trial. | + | :3. Constitutionally, venue provisions arose out of anger at England for transporting treason cases to England for trial. I.e, not related to the material elements of a crime. |
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." [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060485.pdf State v Mills], ___ Or ___ (10/17/13) | + | :"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." |
| + | Reversed and remanded for resolution of the jurisdictional issue of venue. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/S060485.pdf State v Mills], ___ Or ___ (10/17/13) | ||
Revision as of 14:03, 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 prior cases indicating that venue is an element of the crime were a mistake and should be overruled:
- 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. I.e, not related to the material elements of a crime.
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."
Reversed and remanded for resolution of the jurisdictional issue of venue. State v Mills, ___ Or ___ (10/17/13)
