California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Betts, 103 P.3d 883, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 138, 34 Cal.4th 1039 (Cal. 2005):
9. Because no prior appellate court decision in this state established that territorial jurisdiction is an issue for the jury, we agree with the Attorney General's suggestion, made at oral argument, that our decision here need not be limited to prospective application. (Cf. People v. Posey, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 215, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551, 82 P.3d 755 [because adherence to rule that venue is question for jury was long-standing and widespread, decision holding that venue is to be decided by court would be applied prospectively only].)
10. Recognizing that his argument is somewhat inconsistent with our holding in People v. Cavanaugh, supra, 44 Cal.2d 252, 282 P.2d 53, defendant urges us to reconsider the burden of proof required for jurisdictional facts. In view of the conclusion we reach on the jury-trial issue, we see no reason to reconsider the burden of proof.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.