Opinion ID: 2009182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State's Appeal: Venue

Text: The three indictments dismissed on venue grounds involved similar fact patterns. In each, the indictment charged that Moulton did obtain or exercise unauthorized control over the property of another, to wit, three motor vehicles. Moulton allegedly took each vehicle in Penobscot County and brought them into Waldo County. These indictments track the language of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 353 (1983), which provides: A person is guilty of theft if he obtains or exercises unauthorized control over the property of another with intent to deprive him thereof. The Superior Court ruled that, in each case, a completed theft under section 353 occurred prior to the time Moulton brought the vehicles into Waldo County. The crime defined in section 353, however, has a continuing nature and Moulton would continue in violation of section 353 when he took a stolen vehicle into another county. See Crosby v. State, 232 Ga. 599, 600, 207 S.E.2d 515, 517 (1974); Brown v. State, 281 So.2d 924, 927 (Miss.1973). As we said in Mayo v. State, 258 A.2d 269, 270 (Me.1969), [i]f goods are stolen in one county and carried by the thief into another county, he may be prosecuted for the crime in either county. In such circumstances, the crime of theft is committed in both counties and, by M.R.Crim.P. 18, the State may choose the county in which to prosecute. [2] People v. Jennings, 10 Cal.App.3d 712, 89 Cal. Rptr. 268 (1970); State v. Bassett, 86 Idaho 277, 284-85, 385 P.2d 246, 250 (1963); Jones v. Commonwealth, 453 S.W.2d 564 (Ky.1970); 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 185(18), at 480 (1961). We therefore sustain the State's appeal of the dismissal of the three charges of theft for want of proper venue. As a consequence, we remand those cases to the Superior Court for further proceedings. There is no double jeopardy problem with a retrial in Docket No. CR-83-15, which was dismissed at the conclusion of trial. The Superior Court ordered dismissal of that charge on defendant's motion. Before granting defendant's motion the Superior Court made certain that defendant and his counsel understood that dismissal would render defendant subject to prosecution on the same charge in Penobscot County. By seeking dismissal, defendant must run the risk that the State might prevail on appeal, thereby permitting a retrial. See United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 99-100, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2198, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978) (dismissal after full trial, on the defendant's motion, for pre-indictment delay).