Court Opinion

ID: 9782300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:17:33.36536+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:38.287029
License: Public Domain

BROWN, J., Dissenting.
I agree venue is a question of law for the court, to be decided prior to trial; I also agree we should not apply this new rule to the present case or to any other case not yet final on appeal.
However, I do not agree Marin County was a proper venue for this case.
My disagreement does not arise from any sympathy with defendant, who would likely have sold cocaine to the Man in the Moon, so long as he could deliver it within the friendly prosecutorial confines of San Francisco. However, I am concerned that by turning a blind eye to forum shopping by law enforcement authorities, the majority is inadvertently encouraging it.
“[V]enue provisions applicable to criminal proceedings serve a variety of purposes.” (People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1082, 1095 [108 Cal.Rptr.2d 385, 25 P.3d 598] (Simon).) “[F]rom the perspective of a defendant, statutory enactments that provide for trial in a county that bears a reasonable relationship to an alleged criminal offense also operate as a restriction on the discretion of the prosecution to file charges in any locale within the state that it chooses, an option that, if available, would provide the prosecution with the considerable power to choose a setting that, for whatever reason, the prosecution views as favorable to its position or hostile or burdensome to the defendant’s.” (Ibid., italics added.) “[Vjenue provisions also serve to protect the interests of the community in which a crime or criminal activity occurs, vindicat[ing] the community’s right to sit in judgment on crimes committed *224within its territory.’ (People v. Guzman (1988) 45 Cal.3d 915, 937 [248 Cal.Rptr. 467, 755 P.2d 917].)” (Ibid., italics added.)
The balancing test proposed by the Attorney General, which I will discuss below, respects and serves the purposes of the venue provisions that we reiterated in Simon: that trial occur in a county with a reasonable relationship to the alleged criminal offense, thereby vindicating the community’s right to sit in judgment on crimes committed within its territory. Regrettably, the test adopted by the majority invokes the letter of the venue provisions while betraying their spirit.
Forum shopping is what this case is about. The Marin County Sheriff’s Department first sought to have this case prosecuted in San Francisco, the jurisdiction in which the Marin authorities obviously believed the crime to have occurred. It was only after the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute that the Marin County Sheriff’s Department took the case to the Marin County District Attorney’s Office.
Detective Yamanoha of the Marin County Sheriff’s Department had information that defendant’s confederate was selling cocaine in Marin, or at least to Marin residents. Detective Yamanoha’s subsequent investigation revealed that defendant was willing to sell cocaine to someone who said he was calling from Sonoma County. Detective Yamanoha told defendant he was calling from Sonoma County because he did not want defendant to know he was actually calling from Marin County.1 Defendant insisted upon delivering the cocaine in San Francisco.
The frustration of the Marin County Sheriff’s Department at its inability to lure defendant out of San Francisco, where he apparently believed he could sell drugs with impunity to residents and nonresidents alike, is understandable. However, frustration can be a breeding ground for abuse, and by condoning the forum shopping engaged in here, the majority teeters on a slippery slope.
The following hypothetical illustrates just how slippery it is. Suppose that X sells drugs exclusively to San Francisco residents. X’s self-imposed territorial sales restriction does not manifest any concern over the welfare of citizens of other counties; he simply wishes to be able to claim sanctuary in San Francisco. Whatever his motivation, though, he is intentionally restricting his criminal activity to San Francisco. Suppose further that a San Francisco narcotics officer is frustrated by unwillingness on the part of the San *225Francisco District Attorney Office’s to prosecute X. The majority provides that officer with a road map for forum shopping.
Suppose the San Francisco officer finds sympathetic deputy district attorneys in Imperial and Marin Counties, and that the officer, while physically present in each of those counties, places calls to X in which he arranges to buy drugs from X, with the transactions to be executed in San Francisco. Suppose the officer tells X he is a San Franciscan, calling from San Francisco, and that he ultimately, as arranged, picks up the drugs from X in San Francisco. Finally, suppose the officer uses a cell phone with a 415 area code that is consistent with his cover story.
In this hypothetical, because X would have no reason to believe he was departing from his self-imposed rule of selling drugs only to San Francisco residents, and because he would not in fact have sold drugs to anyone with a connection to Imperial County, Imperial County could not be said to have a “reasonable relationship” to his criminal activity. (Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1095.) Accordingly, the citizens of Imperial County would not have an interest in “ ‘vindicating] the community’s right to sit in judgment on crimes committed within its territory.’ ” (Ibid.) Nevertheless, under the rule announced by the majority today, venue would lie in El Centro, 600 miles and a world view apart from San Francisco, simply because the officer, contrary to what he told X, was in Imperial County when he placed one of the phone calls. (Maj. opn., ante, at pp. 28-30.)
X would presumably object to venue in Imperial County on the ground that standing' trial in El Centro would be unduly burdensome on him or his witnesses. However, even if he were successful in this objection, this would be but a minor setback for our hypothetical San Francisco officer, informed forum shopper that he is. The officer has a fallback—Marin County and the majority have already certified the appropriateness of venue there (maj. opn., ante, at pp. 221-222), even though Marin County would have no more at stake in the case than would Imperial.
Curiously, the majority is less sensitive to the abuse of forum shopping than is the Attorney General. There is no requirement, the majority states, that a defendant “possess any mental state whatever with respect to a county, for purposes of venue.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 220.)
The Attorney General, on the other hand, proposed a balancing test for determining venue in which the defendant’s mental state would be one of the *226key factors. “If the crime did not occur in the forum county, one needs to weigh the following factors to decide whether venue is permissible there: (1) the extent to which the defendant either (a) used the forum county to facilitate his criminal purpose or (b) otherwise harmed the forum county; (2) the extent to which the defendant should have known he was (a) using the forum county to facilitate his criminal purpose or (b) otherwise harming the forum county; (3) the extent to which trial in the forum county will impose logistical hardship on the defendant; and (4) the extent to which the prosecution gained tactical advantage by acting improperly to create venue in the forum county.” (Italics added.)
If the balancing test proposed by the Attorney General is applied to the facts of the foregoing hypothetical, venue would clearly be improper in Marin County. X had no reason whatever to believe he was harming Marin County or using it to facilitate his criminal purposes. And it would be highly artificial to say that Marin County was harmed, nevertheless, by X just because the San Francisco officer placed a call from there, when the officer told X he was a San Franciscan calling from San Francisco. Because the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office would not prosecute X, the San Francisco officer clearly gained a tactical advantage by employing a stratagem in order to-create venue in Marin County. Nevertheless, despite the fact that all of the equities identified by the Attorney General would run against trying this hypothetical case in Marin County, the majority would uphold a finding of venue there.
Applying the Attorney General’s test to the facts of this case, I conclude venue was improper in Marin County, but would have been proper in Sonoma County. Detective Yamanoha told defendant and his confederate he was from Santa Rosa, which is in Sonoma County. Therefore, defendant had reason to believe he was harming Sonoma County and using it to facilitate his criminal purpose. On the other hand, defendant had no reason to believe he was harming Marin County or using it to facilitate his criminal purpose. The mere fact that Detective Yamanoha, while claiming to be in Sonoma County when he placed his calls to defendant, was actually in Marin County did not create a “reasonable relationship” between defendant and Marin. (Simon, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1095.) Finally, the Marin County Sheriff’s Department clearly gained an advantage by taking this case to the Marin County District Attorney’s Office after the San Francisco County District Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute it.
*227I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the judgment of conviction.

 Since Detective Yamanoha believed defendant and his confederate had a customer base in Marin County, it is baffling that he was so intent on their not knowing he was calling from Marin County.