Appellant was charged with kidnap and sex offenses which occurred in San Francisco, Alameda, Solano, and San Mateo counties. The San Mateo District Attorney moved to consolidate all the crimes for the purposes of prosecuting them in San Mateo. The San Francisco District Attorney agreed in writing to allow the San Francisco crimes to be prosecuted in San Mateo County. Prior to the trial, appellant unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the Alameda and Solano County offenses because there had been no consent by those district attorneys to prosecute those crimes in San Mateo County. Appellant was convicted of two crimes which were committed in San Francisco, but which began in Alameda County and continued in Solano County. On appeal, he contended that his convictions for those crimes had to be reversed because they were tried in San Mateo without the written agreements of the Solano and Alameda County District Attorneys. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. Section 784.7 requires only that if no other statute authorizes trial in a particular jurisdiction, the case can be tried there by agreement of the district attorney of any jurisdiction providing an appropriate venue. As San Francisco provided an appropriate venue, it was sufficient that San Francisco agreed to prosecution in San Mateo County.