Background
Brandon Isaiah Johnson drove with his then-girlfriend from Pittsburgh toward Franklin, Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth alleged that violence occurred during the trip and filed charges in Mercer County. At a habeas proceeding, the evidence established only a general route: the victim believed the conduct began about an hour after departure, recalled traveling on a highway, and at some point saw a sign for a Slippery Rock exit.
The trial court found that the prosecution had not shown any criminal conduct or act furthering a crime in Mercer County. It granted relief and dismissed the charges. The Commonwealth appealed, arguing both that practical travel from Pittsburgh to Franklin supported venue and that, even if Mercer County was wrong, dismissal was not an available remedy.
Venue is distinct from subject-matter jurisdiction. In Pennsylvania criminal cases, the Commonwealth generally must prove venue by a preponderance of the evidence, although venue is not an element of the offense. Conduct constituting an element, or a legally required result, can establish the county where trial may occur. Related offenses spanning counties may also be joined when they arise from a single criminal episode.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Sullivan wrote that the evidence did not make it more likely than not that a crime occurred in Mercer County. A general assertion about the practical route between two cities could not substitute for proof of the route actually traveled or the location of any charged conduct. The victim’s recollection of a highway and an exit sign did not establish that the couple entered Mercer County, much less that criminal activity happened there.
The panel nevertheless vacated the dismissal. Pennsylvania’s criminal rules do not authorize dismissal merely because venue is improper. The correct remedy is transfer to a county where venue lies. If the record did not permit an immediate selection, the trial court could bifurcate the proceeding, request briefing, or take additional evidence necessary to identify an appropriate county.
The court therefore affirmed the finding that Mercer County was improper, vacated the portion of the order terminating the case, and remanded for further proceedings and transfer. The result preserved Johnson’s venue protection without converting a geographic charging error into a final merits disposition.
Key Takeaways
- The Commonwealth must prove criminal venue by a preponderance of the evidence rather than rely on assumptions about a likely driving route.
- Evidence should connect an element, result, or act furthering the charged crime to the chosen county.
- Improper venue does not authorize dismissal of Pennsylvania criminal charges.
- A trial court may develop the record to identify the correct county and must then transfer the prosecution there.
Why It Matters
Johnson is useful in prosecutions involving travel, electronic conduct, or events spanning county lines. Investigators and prosecutors should preserve location evidence such as maps, timestamps, cell-site information, toll records, and witness testimony tied to identifiable places. Describing the route that a person probably took may not carry the Commonwealth’s burden.
Defense counsel can obtain a meaningful venue ruling without expecting dismissal as the remedy. The opinion encourages parties to separate two questions: whether the chosen county is proper, and where the case should go next. Trial courts should create a sufficient record on both issues to avoid unnecessary appellate proceedings or renewed disputes after remand.
The single-criminal-episode doctrine did not relieve the Commonwealth of showing a geographic connection. Although logically and temporally related charges may be handled together, at least one proper venue must be identified through evidence. The panel’s solution leaves room for an efficient remand: the trial court can receive focused submissions without relitigating whether Mercer County was supported by the existing proof. Counsel should distinguish venue objections from claims that the Commonwealth failed to establish a prima facie case, because the former redirects the prosecution while the latter may end it. When the precise location is uncertain, addressing alternative counties at the initial hearing can avoid a second round of fact-finding. That record should identify both the proposed destination court and the evidentiary basis connecting the episode to it.