Com. v. Cheeks, 84-SC-603-DG
| Decision Date | 31 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-SC-603-DG,84-SC-603-DG |
| Citation | 698 S.W.2d 832 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellant, v. Earl C. CHEEKS, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
David L. Armstrong, Atty. Gen., Carl Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellant.
Richard H. Shuster, Appellate Public Advocate, Louisville, for appellee.
Earl Cheeks was convicted of second-degree assault and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and on the motion of the Commonwealth we granted discretionary review. We reverse.
On August 19, 1982, George Mickey Lamb, a five-month-old child, suffered second-degree burns on most of his abdomen and his left hand. The burns were caused by a skillet full of hot grease which somehow landed on the baby's stomach. Cheeks claimed that he had put a handful of Crisco in the skillet, put the skillet on a stove and then left the skillet there while he went to a nearby pantry to clean his hands. While there, he heard the mother of the child scream, and when he turned he saw the skillet on the baby's stomach. Cheeks claimed that the skillet accidentally slid off of the stove while his back was turned. Experts at Cheeks' trial testified that the absence of grease burns on the child, as well as the skillet-shaped burn on the baby's stomach, could not possibly have been caused by the skillet sliding off of the stove, as Cheeks contended.
The sole question raised on review is whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the circuit court should have granted Cheeks' motion for directed verdict for the reason that the Commonwealth failed to introduce any testimony or other evidence to the effect that the situs of the alleged crime was in Fayette County.
The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals held that insufficient evidence was introduced by the Commonwealth, to prove venue as required under KRS 452.510. KRS 452.510 provides as follows:
Criminal prosecutions: Unless otherwise provided by law the venue of criminal prosecutions and penal actions is in the county or city in which the offense was committed.
The court ruled that the situs of an alleged crime is not a venue matter, but is a matter of jurisdiction which must be proven by the evidence. The court further noted that the controversy over jurisdiction and venue has produced a great deal of confusion.
We agree with the court that there is indeed a great deal of unnecessary confusion over the distinction between the two concepts. We will now attempt to clear the muddy waters stirred by this ongoing controversy. Black's Law Dictionary (Fourth Ed.) defines "jurisdiction" as follows:
The word is a term of large and comprehensive import. It is the authority by which courts and judicial officers take cognizance of and decide cases; the legal right by which judges exercise their authority. It exists when court has cognizance of class of cases involved, proper parties are present, and point to be decided is within issues. (citations omitted).
"Venue" is defined as follows:
In pleading and practice. A neighborhood; the neighborhood, place, or county in which an injury is declared to have been done, or fact declared to have happened. Also, the county (or geographical division) in which an action or prosecution is brought for trial, and which is to furnish the panel of jurors. It relates only to place where or territory within which either party may require case to be tried. (Citations omitted) Id.
In simple terms, the commission of a statutory offense in Kentucky gives rise to the authority i.e. "jurisdiction" of the courts of this state to preside over the prosecution of the case. KRS 500.060 provides as follows:
Territorial applicability--(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person may be convicted under the law of this state of an offense committed by his own conduct or the conduct of another for which he is legally accountable when:
(a) Either the conduct or the result which is an element of the offense occurs within this state; or
(b) Conduct occurring outside the state is sufficient to constitute a conspiracy to commit an offense within the state; or
(c) Conduct occurring outside the state is sufficient to constitute a conspiracy to commit an offense within the state and an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurs within the state; or
(d) Conduct occurring within this state establishes complicity in the commission of, or an attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit, an offense in another jurisdiction which is also an offense under the law of this state; or
(e) The offense consists of the omission to perform a legal duty imposed by the law of this state regardless of where that person is when the omission occurs; or
(f) The offense is a violation of a statute of this state that expressly prohibits conduct outside the state.
(2) Subsection (1)(a) does not apply if causing a particular result is an element of an offense and the result is caused by conduct occurring outside the state that would not constitute an offense if the result had occurred there, unless the actor intentionally or knowingly caused the result within the state.
(3) When the offense is homicide, either the death of the victim or the bodily impact causing death constitutes a "result" within the meaning of subsection (1)(a). If the body of a homicide victim is found within this state, it shall be prima facie evidence that the result occurred within the state.
The proper forum i.e. "venue" of the prosecution of the case is in the county in which the alleged offense has been committed. KRS 452.510. There is no question but that the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of an offense and of the person of the defendant as prerequisites for presiding over the case. See Singleton v. Commonwealth, 306 Ky. 454, 208 S.W.2d 325, 326 (1948).
The jurisdiction to preside over the prosecution of offenses committed in this state is vested in the circuit courts. The Constitution of Kentucky, Section 112(5) provides as follows:
The circuit court shall have original jurisdiction of all justiciable causes not vested in some other court.
The proper forum in which the case is to be prosecuted is the circuit court in the county or city in which the offense was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Commonwealth
...14 S.W. 833 (Ky. 1890) ).15 Bedell, 870 S.W.2d at 781 (citing Hardin v. Commonwealth, 437 S.W.2d 931 (Ky. 1968) ).16 Commonwealth v. Cheeks, 698 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Ky. 1985) (citing Gilley v. Commonwealth, 280 Ky. 306, 133 S.W.2d 67 (1939) ); Rounds v. Commonwealth, 282 Ky. 657, 139 S.W.2d 73......
-
Derry v. Com., No. 2006-SC-000181-DG.
...must be tried. Although there is some confusion on this, current law does not deem venue to be jurisdictional. See Commonwealth v. Cheeks, 698 S.W.2d 832, 835 (Ky.1985); Bedell v. Commonwealth, 870 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky.1993). Though the older versions of the venue statutes expressly stated t......
-
Anderson v. Commonwealth, No. 2008-CA-000268-MR (Ky. App. 1/9/2009)
...the venue of criminal prosecutions and penal actions is in the county or city in which the offense was committed. In Commonwealth v. Cheeks, 698 S.W.2d 832 (Ky. 1985), the Supreme Court of Kentucky summarized the authorities and rules requiring that the Commonwealth establish that the crime......
-
Ebertshauser v. Commonwealth, No. 2003-CA-002707-MR (KY 2/4/2005)
...the venue of criminal prosecutions and penal actions is in the county or city in which the offense was committed. In Commonwealth v. Cheeks, 698 S.W.2d 832 (Ky. 1985), the Supreme Court of Kentucky explained the reason why proper venue is so important when it The circuit courts of this stat......