An act to amend Section 784.7 of the Penal Code, relating to criminal procedure.
Summary
AB 2147 would amend Penal Code Section 784.7 to expand where certain multi-jurisdiction criminal cases may be prosecuted. Under current law, venue rules already allow some offenses committed in more than one county to be tried in any county where one of the offenses occurred, but for sexual battery the existing rule depends on the same defendant and victim across the offenses. This bill would remove that same-defendant/same-victim limitation for multiple sexual battery offenses, so venue could be established in any county where at least one offense occurred.
The bill also extends that same venue rule to cases involving multiple violations of indecent exposure and annoying or molesting a child. In practical terms, it would make it easier for prosecutors to join related charges arising in different counties into a single case, while still requiring a Section 954 hearing and written agreement from district attorneys in the affected counties. The court would continue to consider evidence location, case complexity, where most offenses occurred, the rights of the parties, and the convenience or hardship to victims and witnesses when deciding whether to join counts in one county.
Impact
AB 2147 would narrow and clarify venue restrictions in Penal Code Section 784.7 by expanding multi-county jurisdiction for specified sex-related offenses. It would affect criminal procedure rather than create new crimes or penalties, and it would apply to prosecutions involving sexual battery, indecent exposure, and annoying or molesting a child, along with any properly joinable offenses. Prosecutors could more readily file and try related counts in a single county when at least one offense occurred there, subject to the existing venue-hearing and inter-county district attorney agreement requirements.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been received favorably and moved quickly through the legislative process. It passed committee unanimously and later passed on the Assembly floor without any recorded opposition, then was enrolled and presented to the Governor. The lack of recorded dissent suggests broad support for the bill’s procedural changes, likely because it is framed as a venue and case-management measure rather than a substantive expansion of criminal liability.
Contention
No major contention is reflected in the available committee or floor history, and there were no recorded no votes. The main policy issue implicit in the bill is the balance between prosecutorial efficiency and defendants’ venue rights, especially in cases spanning multiple counties. The bill preserves judicial review and district attorney agreement requirements, which likely helped reduce opposition, but the expansion of venue for sexual battery, indecent exposure, and child-molestation-related offenses could still raise concerns about forum selection and fairness in multi-county prosecutions.