Opinion ID: 1925492
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Point 1(b) (Venue)

Text: Since the appellant has advanced no argument which raised any issue that the Superior Court lacked basic authority to deal with this case, we deem that his use of the expression venue or jurisdiction was inadvertent and, in fact, raised only problems of venue. 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law § 376. It is obvious that the Superior Court has jurisdiction over charges of escape from the Maine State Prison. The motion to dismiss for lack of venue was dated, filed, and dismissed on October 26, 1972, the day immediately prior to the jury waived trial. The record before us is barren of any facts advanced in support of the motion beyond the notation Motion denied by the presiding Justice. We must, therefore, limit our review by assuming that the well pleaded allegations in the indictment are true. Rule 18, M.R.Crim.P., which states the basic venue provision in criminal cases, provides in all criminal prosecutions, the trial shall be in the county in which the offense was committed, except as otherwise provided by law. See Glassman, Maine Practice, Commentary 18.1. The indictment here was returned by the Knox County grand jury and plainly recited that Thomaston, County of Knox and State of Maine, was the place where the criminal offense was committed. On its face, therefore, venue is sufficiently alleged. State v. Warner, 237 A.2d 150, 157 (Me.1967). Section 710, by its own terms, confers venue on Knox County for all violations thereunder since it directs the county attorney of Knox County to prosecute all such violations. 30 M.R.S.A. § 502 requires the several county attorneys to prosecute to final judgment and sentence all criminal cases before the Superior Court of his county. Reading Sections 710 and 502 together removes any doubt that Knox County is the proper venue for prosecutions under Section 710.