 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Curtis v. Commonwealth2/11/1992
nited States v. Ball, 163 U.S. 662 (1896), the United States Supreme Court recognized that a prior proceeding in a court lacking jurisdiction over the matter does not bar a subsequent proceeding "in a court which has jurisdiction of the offence." Id. at 669. See also Grafton v. United States, 206 U.S. 333, 345 (1907); Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442 (1912).
eopardy cannot extend to an offense beyond the jurisdiction of the court in which the accused is tried.
State v. Manzanares, 674 P.2d 511, 512 (N.M. 1983), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1057 (1985). See State v. Padilla, 678 P.2d 686 (N.M. 1984), aff'd sub nom. Fugate v. New Mexico, 470 U.S. 904 (1985); see also People v. Page, 196 Ill. App. 3d 285, 553 N.E.2d 753 (1990).
In his Concurring opinion in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), Justice Brennan, the author of the majority opinion in Grady v. Corbin, describing the applicability of the Double Jeopardy Clause, noted, " exception would be necessary if no single court had jurisdiction of all the alleged crimes." Id. at 453 n.7 (Brennan, J., Concurring).
(5) The purpose of the double jeopardy rule, as enunciated in Grady, is to prevent the state from using its resources to rehearse its evidence and to impose upon the accused the burden of defending successive prosecutions. That rule is not invoked where the several crimes involved are not amenable to common jurisdiction.
(6) The circuit courts of the Commonwealth are invested with jurisdiction to try criminal charges. Code § 17-23. See Garza v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 559, 565-66, 323 S.E.2d 127, 130-31 (1984). That jurisdiction is limited to the trial of all presentments, indictments and informations for offenses committed within their respective circuits. See Code § 19.2-239. Thus, charges may be tried only in the circuit courts having territorial jurisdiction over the locations in which the crimes occurred and in which venue is laid. See Howell v. Commonwealth, 187 Va. 34, 40-41, 46 S.E.2d 37, 40-41 (1948); Karnes v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 758, 762, 99 S.E. 562, 563 (1919). The indictment charging the Richmond rape could be tried only in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond. The indictment charging the attempted capital murder in Chesterfield could be tried only in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County. No court had common jurisdiction over both charges. Thus, the jurisdictional exception applies to this case. Since the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond was without jurisdiction to try the charge of attempted capital murder, Curtis was not put in jeopardy with respect to that charge when he was tried for rape in Richmond. Jeopardy with respect to that charge attached, first and solely, upon his trial in Chesterfield.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Disposition
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Virginia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|