Logo
Searching Tips

When searching Forecite California, there are shortcuts you can take to find the information you are looking for:

1. By Code Section:

Forecite uses standard abbreviations for different types of codes. Those abbreviations can be found below:

Codes:
CCR California Code of Regulations
Corp C Corporations Code
EC Evidence Code
FG Fish and Game Code
GC Government Code
HN Harbors & Navigation Code
HS Health & Safety Code
PC Penal Code
RT Revenue & Tax Code
VC Vehicle Code
WI Welfare & Institutions Code

Using these codes to search is very simple. For example, if you wanted to search for Penal Code section 20, you would type PC 20 into the search box.

2. By CALJIC Number:

Since Forecite is indexed to CALJIC, searching for CALJIC numbers is easy. For example, to search for CALJIC 3.16, you would type 3.16 into the search box.

3. By Case Name or Citation:

To find a case or citation, simply enter all or part of the case’s citation. Since many cases are known only by one name involved, it is often helpful to not search for the entire citation. For example, if you were searching for references to People v. Geiger (84) 35 C3d 510, 526 [199 CR 45], you could search for People v. Geiger or just Geiger. Searching for Geiger might be more helpful since it would find references to the case that do not include the full citation.

  • Contact Us
  • Log In
  • My Account

  • Home
  • Firm Overview
  • Attorney Profiles
  • Practice Areas
  • Verdicts & Settlements
  • News & media
  • Blog
  • Contact

Back to  Previous Page
Back to top

Return to Return to Non-CALJIC Defenses – Contents

F 4.014 n1 Multiple Crimes: Territorial Jurisdiction.

Effective 1/1/99, AB 2734, Ch. 302 added PC 784.7 to vest territorial jurisdiction for two or more violations of PC 261, PC 262, PC 264.1, PC 273a, PC 273.5, PC 286, PC 288, PC 288a, PC 288.5, PC 289 or PC 646.9 that occur in more than one territorial jurisdiction, in any jurisdiction where at least one offense occurred, if the defendant and the victim are the same for all the offenses.

Price v. Superior Court (People) (2001) 25 C4th 1046, 1052, 1075, 1078 [108 CR2d 409] held that PC 784.7 is not unconstitutional and that applying the statute to pending cases does not violate ex post facto principles.


F 4.014 n2 Territorial Jurisdiction: Crimes Committed Within 500 Yards Of Prosecuting County.

See People v. Walsh REV GTD/DISD/DEPUB (2000) 81 CA4th 911, 915 [97 CR2d 209] [territorial jurisdiction exists for crimes committed within 500 yards of prosecuting county per PC 782].

F 4.014 n3 Whether Subject Matter Jurisdiction/Territorial Jurisdiction Is A Jury Question.

There is a pronounced split of authority as to whether a state’s jurisdiction is a question for the court or for the jury. Most states have held that if the facts on which jurisdiction depends are controverted, resolution of those disputed facts must be left to the jury. (See State v. Willoughby (AZ 1995) 892 P2d 1319, 1325; People v. Cullen (CO 1984) 695 P2d 750, 751; Sheeran v. State (DE 1987) 526 A2d 886, 890; Lane v. State (FL 1980) 388 So2d 1022, 1028;McKinney v. State (IN 1990) 553 NE2d 860, 863-64; State v. Liggins (IA 1994) 524 NW2d 181, 184-85; State v. Collin (ME 1997) 687 A2d 962, 964; State v. Butler (MD 1999) 724 A2d 657, 663; People v. McLaughlin (NY 1992) 606 NE2d 1357, 1359-60; State v. Batdorf (NC 1977) 238 SE2d 497, 502-503; Commonwealth v. Bighum (PA 1973) 307 A2d 255, 258, receded from on other grounds in Commonwealth v. Randall (PA 1987) 528 A2d 1326; State v. Beall (TN 1986) 729 SW2d 270, 271.)

A minority of jurisdictions have held that the issue is not for the jury but for the court. (State v. Beverly (CT 1993) 618 A2d 1335, 1338; Mitchell v. U.S. (DC 1990) 569 A2d 177, 180; Adair v. U.S. (DC 1978) 391 A2d 288, 290; State v. Reldan (NJ 1982) 449 A2d 1317; but see State v. Bragg (NJ 1996) 685 A2d 488, 491-92; State v. Belloli (RI 2001) 766 A2d 928, 932; State v. Halstead (RI 1980) 414 A2d 1138, 1144.)

People v. Betts (2005) 34 C4th 1039 held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is one for the judge, not the jury.

F 4.014 n4 Applicability Of Apprendi/Ring To Subject Matter/Territorial Jurisdiction.

People v. Betts (2005) 34 C4th 1039 held that Apprendi (Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 US 466 [147 LEd2d 435; 120 SCt 2348] and Ring (Ring v. Arizona (2002) 536 US 584 [153 LEd2d 556; 122 SCt 2428] do not apply to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. (See also Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 US 296 [159 LEd2d 403; 124 SCt 2531].)

F 4.014 n5 Standard Of Proof: Subject Matter/Territorial Jurisdiction.

People v. Cavanaugh (55) 44 C2d 255, 262 [282 P2d 53] held that subject matter jurisdiction need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

F 4.014 n6 Jurisdiction: Parent Who Kidnaps Own Child To Another Country.

See People v. Lazarevich (2004) 124 CA4th 140 [subject matter jurisdiction established in California where parent harbored children outside of the country in violation of California court order].


F 4.014a

Territorial Jurisdiction As A Factual Question For The Judge

ALERT: People v.Betts (2005) 34 C4th 1039 held that the issue of territorial jurisdiction is one for the judge, not the jury.

The question of whether the state of California has territorial jurisdiction over any crimes committed outside of California is for you, the jury, to determine. To establish territorial jurisdiction the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, with intent to commit a crime, committed an act within the state of California which culminated in the commission of a crime outside the state of California. Both the act and the specific intent to commit the crime must have occurred in California. To trigger California’s territorial jurisdiction, the act and specific intent must have been sufficient to constitute a criminal attempt.

[Insert CJ 6.00 “Attempt–Defined” here.]

Points and Authorities

Unlike the question of venue (see FORECITE F 4.012a) territorial jurisdiction, as specified in PC 778(a), is strictly construed so that California lacks territorial jurisdiction to prosecute a crime consummated outside the state unless the acts within it are sufficient to constitute a criminal attempt. (People v. Chapman (77) 72 CA3d 6, 10 [139 CR 808].) Thus, if the defendant did not form the specific intent to commit the crime until outside of California, then there is no territorial jurisdiction in California. (Id. at 12.)

Failure to adequately instruct upon a defense or defense theory implicates the defendant’s state (Art. I, § 15 and § 16) and federal (6th and 14th Amendments) constitutional rights to trial by jury, compulsory process and due process. [See FORECITE PG VII(C).]

  • Register as New User
  • Contact Us
© James Publishing, Inc. (866) 72-JAMES