Venue in Virginia: not to be overlooked.
In Virginia criminal law, venue is not a procedural technicality—it is a constitutional and statutory requirement that the Commonwealth must affirmatively prove. While often overshadowed by substantive elements like intent or mens rea, failure to properly establish venue can be fatal to the prosecution’s case.
This issue becomes particularly important in cases involving alleged conduct spanning multiple jurisdictions, transportation of stolen property, or offenses with ambiguous geographic origins.
What Is Venue in Virginia?
Venue refers to the geographic location where a case is tried, and in Virginia, it must be laid in the jurisdiction where the offense was committed. This principle is grounded in both fairness and constitutional guarantees, ensuring that a defendant is tried in the proper locality.
Under Virginia law:
Venue is not jurisdictional, but it is mandatory
The Commonwealth bears the burden of proving venue
Venue must be established by evidence, not assumption
Importantly, venue can be proven by circumstantial evidence, but it cannot be presumed
The Commonwealth’s Burden: No Shortcuts Allowed
The prosecution must present sufficient evidence that the alleged crime occurred in the jurisdiction where the case is being tried. This can include:
Testimony placing events within a specific locality
Physical evidence tied to a location
Logical inferences from surrounding facts
However, courts have consistently held that speculation or inference stacked on inference is insufficient.
The Impact of Taylor v. Commonwealth
A key case on this issue is Taylor v. Commonwealth, which addresses the intersection of venue and the doctrine of continuing larceny.
The Core Holding
The Court made clear:
The legal fiction of continuing larceny does not create a presumption of proper venue.
This is a critical limitation.
Why It Matters
Virginia recognizes that larceny is a “continuing offense,” meaning that possession of stolen property can extend the offense across jurisdictions. However, Taylor rejects the idea that this doctrine relieves the Commonwealth of its burden to prove venue in a specific locality.
In practical terms:
Just because stolen property is found in a jurisdiction
Does not mean the Commonwealth can assume the theft occurred there
Nor can it rely on the continuing nature of larceny to “fill in the gaps”
The prosecution must still prove—through evidence—that venue is proper in that jurisdiction
Practical Defense Implications
From a defense perspective, venue is a strategic pressure point that is often underutilized.
When to Challenge Venue
You should be scrutinizing venue where:
The alleged offense spans multiple counties or cities
The location of the initial act is unclear or disputed
The Commonwealth relies heavily on inference rather than direct proof
Property is merely recovered in the prosecuting jurisdiction
How to Raise It
Venue challenges can be raised:
Through a motion to strike at the close of the Commonwealth’s evidence
As part of a broader sufficiency argument
On appeal, if preserved properly
Because venue is an element the Commonwealth must prove, failure to do so can result in dismissal or reversal
Bottom Line
Venue in Virginia is not a formality—it is a required element of the Commonwealth’s case. And as Taylor v. Commonwealth makes clear, even well-established doctrines like continuing larceny do not relieve the prosecution of that burden.
If the Commonwealth cannot prove where the crime occurred, it cannot secure a conviction—no matter how strong the rest of the case may appear.
Facing Charges in Southern Virginia?
If you are from out of state and facing criminal charges in Southern Virginia, particularly in or around Danville or Martinsville, you need counsel who understands both the law and the local courts.
Call Daniel Rouleau, Esq.
Rouleau Law, PLLC
📞 434-933-0022
Experienced trial representation. Strategic defense. Local knowledge where it matters most.
