Fact Pattern: Catering company prepares the meal in one county but the wedding reception is held in another county. Brides father pays for the catering service with a hot check. Assuming all of the elements for theft are met, in which county do you prosecute? Where the food was prepared and the catering company has its business office or where the wedding reception was held or in either of them.

Thank you for your help. I thought either county was fine but I am being told that might not be the case.

Its not clear to me whether the check was delivered by father in person to business office prior to the reception or was it presented to the caterer at the reception? I think you might be stuck with venue under 13.18 CCP and the facts are obviously going to control the day.

Just a thought

I would also need more facts to give an answer, but would approach it like this: We have a theft of services by deception; so one of the elements is obtaining the services. The services were arguably performed in both counties, but certainly in the location of the reception. The deception, including (but not necessarily limited to)giving the check that was deceitfully presented as a good check, happened wherever that check was passed. If the reception and the passing of the check happened in the same county, then that county should prosecute it. The offense also occurred in the county where the defendant knew the food was to be prepared, but why have that be an issue?

Additional facts are the victim presented the father of the bride an invoice during the reception and asked for his payment at the reception. The prearranged agreement was for a simultaneous exchange. The victim pursued the defendant for payment multiple times at the reception. The defendant kept putting him off saying he was busy. Against the agreement and consent of the victim, the defendant stiffed him that night and put the check in the mail the next day.

Personally, I do not think lack of a simultaneous exchange hurts the theft elements in this case because the victim never agreed to delay payment. The victim never consented; he did not have a choice. The defendant broke their prearranged agreement and bullied him. That is why I said assume all elements of theft are met.

Please give advise on my first venue question and also do you think all elements of theft are met.

Thank you.

art. 13.08 would not appear to apply to a theft of service, and therefore the proper venue is determined according to art. 13.18. I think you are correct that any county where an element of the offense occurred could maintain venue. The giving of the check was not the deception since it came after performance of the service. The provider did not rely on the check but rather the promised performance. That promise was likely made in the county in which it was received by the provider. The service started at that point (even before completed in another county). Performance was "secured" in both counties. Certainly the county where payment was to be made has the closest connection to the defendant's intent to avoid payment (that would be my county of choice to initiate the prosecution). If you were to utilize (a)(4), then I guess you can argue venue is wherever the defendant failed to make payment.

We talk about a simultaneous exchange of the check for the property or service because that makes theft by check more easily distinguishable from issuance of a bad check for lay people.

The real issue for theft of property and theft of services [at least in the traditional 31.04(a)(1) sense] is whether the defendant obtained the property or service "by deception". The real issue is reliance: Did the compliainant rely on the lie? [ie, did it affect his judgment in the transaction?]

It sounds like our defendant either a)deceived the complainant when he promised to pay for the reception, intending never to pay him or b)deceived him when he arrived at the reception knowing that he would not/could not pay for the reception, but kept that information to himself rather than sharing it with the complainant. We have deception as defined in 31.01(1)(E) or (B).

The bullying, brush off, bad check, and continued non-payment are evidence of his intent to deceive.

Thank you for your help. After receiving his subpoena to appear at Grand Jury, the defendant's attorney called to say the defendant will be paying restitution by the end of the week.