Is territorial jurisdiction an issue for the jury or the trial court in a criminal case?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Betts, 103 P.3d 883, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 138, 34 Cal.4th 1039 (Cal. 2005):
The courts of other states are divided on the question whether the determination of territorial jurisdiction in a criminal case is for the jury or the trial court. Decisions in some states have concluded that when the facts underlying territorial jurisdiction are in dispute, the issue must be resolved by a jury.5 Generally, the courts rendering those decisions have provided little analysis, relying instead on the weight of authority from other courts and on the general principle that factual issues are for the jury. Several jurisdictions, however, have concluded that the court, not the jury, decides whether territorial jurisdiction has been established in a criminal case.6 These decisions recognize that the factual nature of the issue is not determinative and that factual issues must be resolved by the jury only if they affect the
[23 Cal.Rptr.3d 147]
determination of the defendant's guilt or innocence. (See, e.g., State v. Beverly, supra, 224 Conn. 372, 618 A.2d 1335, 1338 [territorial jurisdiction is issue for court, and the defendant's right to jury trial does not encompass issues that are not relevant to guilt or innocence].)[23 Cal.Rptr.3d 147]
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
