How have courts interpreted the rule that venue is a question of fact for the jury?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from People v. Posey, 32 Cal.4th 193, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551, 82 P.3d 755 (Cal. 2004):

When we scrutinize Megladdery's rationale for the rule that venue is a question of fact for the jury, we find it unpersuasive. Although it is true that the People must prove the facts underlying venue by a preponderance of the evidence, it does not follow, contrary to the assertion in Megladdery (People v. Megladdery, supra, 40 Cal.App.2d at p. 762, 106 P.2d 84), that the People must prove those facts to the satisfaction of the jury.

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.

Other Questions

When a jury asks a question after retiring for deliberation, does the court have a duty to provide the jury with information the jury desires? (California, United States of America)

When a jury asks a question after retiring for deliberation, does the court have an obligation to provide the jury with information the jury desires? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted section 1016.5 of the California Immigration Code and how have the courts interpreted the word 'court' in that section? (California, United States of America)

When a jury asks a jury a question after retiring for deliberation, does the court have a duty to provide the jury with additional instructions? (California, United States of America)

When a defendant's out-of-court statement is admitted to a jury, does the court have to instruct the jury that this evidence must be viewed with caution? (California, United States of America)

When a jury has been sworn in, can the trial court reopen jury selection after the jury has already been sworn? (California, United States of America)

How have the courts interpreted the prosecutor's statement that the jury's verdict must be based on the evidence presented in court? (California, United States of America)

Is there any case law where a prosecutor's argument that a jury would be "damaging" to the jury has been interpreted in the context of a jury trial? (California, United States of America)

Does the trial court's instructions to the jury that the jury must conclusively accept the previous jury's finding that defendant's guilt has already been decided? (California, United States of America)

On a motion to be heard by the Court of Appeal at the Superior Court of California for a change of venue, does the Court have any jurisdiction or authority to hear the motion? (California, United States of America)

How have courts interpreted the rule that venue is a question of fact for the jury?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources