Judge denies motion to quash in venue dispute over protective‑order statute

In cause 25 DCCR1872 the court heard argument on a defense motion to quash an indictment that the defense said was defective on venue grounds under the revised statutory provision governing protective‑order offenses.

Defense counsel argued that the statute’s venue language does not clearly permit prosecution where the complaining witness received an electronic communication, and therefore the indictment should be quashed or amended. The prosecutor countered that venue may be proper where the victim received the offending electronic communication and cited case law the office argued was instructive for modern digital communications.

After hearing competing authorities and counsel’s briefs, the judge declined to quash the indictment. The court instructed the state to amend the charging instrument to correct style and statutory references as necessary and allowed the case to be reset for announcement and, if no plea is reached, trial scheduling.

The exchange focused on venue principles for electronic communications and whether venue is tied to the defendant’s location, the victim’s residence or other substantial contacts with a county. Defense counsel warned of the possibility that venue rules could be used strategically; the prosecutor urged that limiting venue to the defendant’s physical location would produce impractical results in an age of mobile and online communications.

The court’s denial preserves the prosecution’s ability to proceed in Jefferson County; the prosecutor said the office would seek to amend the indictment for clarity and to align the charging language with the applicable statute. The defense noted the client resides outside the county and said they would proceed with scheduling and discovery accordingly.