State v. Mills, 312 P.3d 515

Background

Defendant (Kenneth Mills) was stopped on Highway 26 and charged with driving while license revoked; case tried to the court after defendant waived a jury.
After the state rested, Mills moved for judgment of acquittal arguing the state failed to prove venue (that the offense occurred in Washington County).
Trial court denied the motion and convicted Mills; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the state must prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt under Ore. Const. art. I, § 11.
The State petitioned for review to the Oregon Supreme Court, which granted review en banc.
The Supreme Court considered whether Article I, § 11’s trial-location guarantee implicitly makes venue a material allegation the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Court concluded the constitutional clause guarantees a personal right to trial in the county where the offense occurred (subject to waiver) but does not convert venue into a substantive element the State must prove at trial; remanded for further proceedings because Mills raised venue at trial under earlier law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ore. Const. art. I, § 11 requires the State to prove venue beyond a reasonable doubt as a material allegation	State: §11 does not say the State must prove venue; it provides a right to object or waive venue and defendant forfeited by not raising it pretrial	Mills: Historical common-law practice and this court’s prior cases make venue a material allegation the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt	Held: §11 guarantees a right to trial in the county but does not constitutionalize the common-law proof requirement; venue is a personal right subject to timely assertion (waiver applies)
Whether Oregon precedents requiring proof of venue should be overruled	State: prior cases lacked Priest-style analysis and should be reexamined	Mills: prior line of cases is controlling and requires proof of venue	Held: Overruled Casey, Harvey, and later cases that treated venue as a constitutional material allegation because they lack textual or historical support
When venue must be raised to avoid waiver	State: venue objection should be raised pretrial (before jury empaneled or before evidence in bench trial)	Mills: permitted to raise at trial consistent with prior law	Held: Defendant must generally raise venue before trial; pretrial resolution is appropriate to avoid trial disruption; but fairness required remand here because Mills relied on prior law that allowed midtrial challenge
Remedy when venue was not timely raised under current holding	State: if venue timely challenged, court may hold evidentiary hearing and State must prove venue; if not challenged, judgment stands	Mills: sought acquittal for lack of venue proof	Held: On remand, Mills may choose to renew constitutional venue challenge; if he does, court holds evidentiary hearing and State may attempt to prove venue; if he declines, conviction reinstated

Key Cases Cited

State v. Casey, 108 Or 386 (Or. 1923) (earlier statement treating venue as material allegation without analysis)
State v. Harvey, 117 Or 466 (Or. 1926) (followed Casey in treating venue as constitutional proof requirement)
State v. Miller, 133 Or 256 (Or. 1930) (reiterated State burden to prove venue)
State v. Roper, 286 Or 621 (Or. 1979) (traced constitutional venue origins to Virginia Resolves, not common law)
Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 331 Or 38 (Or. 2000) (framework for overruling prior constitutional precedent when unsupported by text/history)
Priest v. Pearce, 314 Or 411 (Or. 1992) (methodology for interpreting constitutional provisions)
State v. Davis, 350 Or 440 (Or. 2011) (text/context required in constitutional interpretation)
State v. Savastano, 354 Or 64 (Or. 2013) (recent overruling example applying Priest framework)
Hyde v. Shine, 199 U.S. 62 (U.S. 1905) (historical discussion of federal venue concerns about hardship and fairness)