Opinion ID: 2200750
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Waiver of venue objection.

Text: State contends that Haase waived any objection to trial of the rape charge in Minnehaha County by withdrawing his pretrial motion to dismiss the charge and by couching his objection in terms of jurisdiction rather than venue. State's argument points out the confusion which often arises in this context between the concepts of jurisdiction and venue. Jurisdiction is made up of two components, i.e., (a) personal jurisdiction and (b) subject-matter jurisdiction. See, Honomichl v. State, 333 N.W.2d 797 (S.D.1983). A court must have both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction before it may act on a criminal charge. Id. A court acquires personal jurisdiction by the accused's presence before the court, irrespective of the events procuring his presence. State v. Arnold, 379 N.W.2d 322 (S.D.1986). Subject-matter jurisdiction entails the power of a court to hear a case, determine the facts, apply the law and set a penalty. Zelenka v. State, 83 Wis.2d 601, 266 N.W.2d 279 (1978). Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement, consent, or waiver. Honomichl, 333 N.W.2d at 799. A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction to pronounce it is wholly void and without any force or effect whatever. State v. Mee, 67 S.D. 589, 297 N.W. 40 (1941). Jurisdiction may be challenged at any time during the pendency of the proceedings and for the first time on appeal. SDCL 23A-8-3(3); Honomichl, supra . Venue is another matter. It refers to the county in which the prosecution is to be brought. State v. Greene, 86 S.D. 177, 192 N.W.2d 712 (1971). Generally, this will be the county in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. S.D. Const. art. VI, § 7; SDCL 23A-16-3. However, unlike jurisdiction which cannot be conferred by waiver, ( Honomichl, supra ) the right to venue of a prosecution in the county where the offense was committed can be waived by a defendant and the prosecution may proceed in another county. State v. Nilles, 397 N.W.2d 475 (S.D.1986); Croan v. State, 295 N.W.2d 728 (S.D.1980); State v. Ross, 47 S.D. 188, 197 N.W. 234 (1924). Were the rule otherwise, a change in venue would not be possible. See, Croan, supra ; In re Nelson, 19 S.D. 214, 102 N.W. 885 (1902). In summation, subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived, but venue can be waived. In this instance, state asserts that an objection to venue of a prosecution in a county, other than that where the offense was committed, is waived by failure to raise the objection prior to trial. Explicitly, failure to raise a defense or objection, which must be raised prior to trial, does constitute a waiver of the defense or objection. SDCL 23A-8-9. One category of defenses or objections that must be raised prior to trial is, [d]efenses and objections based on defects in the indictment or information... SDCL 23A-8-3(3). To be sufficient, a venue allegation must appear in an indictment or information that the offense charged was committed in the county in which the prosecution is instituted. SDCL 23A-6-7(4); State v. Jerke, 73 S.D. 64, 38 N.W.2d 874 (1949). Thus, if an indictment or information fails to contain such an allegation, the defect must be raised prior to trial or is deemed waived. SDCL 23A-8-3(3); SDCL 23A-8-9; State v. Egan, 44 S.D. 273, 183 N.W. 652 (1921). Here, the indictment expressly contained a proper venue allegation that the rape occurred in Minnehaha County, the county where the prosecution was instituted. Accordingly, there was no defect in the allegation of venue on the face of the indictment requiring Haase to raise an objection prior to trial. Therefore, we conclude that Haase properly preserved his objection to venue of the rape prosecution by waiting until the close of state's case to raise the objection. This conclusion is in accord with that reached by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in ruling on a similar issue. In United States v. Black Cloud, 590 F.2d 270 (8th Cir.1979) the court of appeals stated: Where lack of proper venue is apparent on the face of an indictment, venue objections are waived if not made prior to trial. However, when an indictment contains a proper allegation of venue so that a defendant has no notice of a defect of venue until the government rests its case, the objection is timely if made at the close of the evidence. (citations omitted). Id. at 272. Having treated the procedural, we now examine the substantive.