State v. Davis, 273 P.3d 251

Davis was observed in Medford, Oregon, appearing intoxicated after leaving a restaurant with four children.
Two witnesses reported the restaurant location as Medford; officer Vollrath testified the call originated in Medford at 4th and Jackson.
Vollrath traced Davis’s movements from the restaurant toward Central Avenue, noting at an empty intersection and on I-5 before stopping south of the East 12th Street viaduct.
Davis was arrested for driving under the influence and related reckless conduct after being stopped by Vollrath.
At trial, Davis moved for judgment of acquittal on the basis the State did not prove venue in Jackson County; the court denied the motion.
Davis was convicted by a jury of DUII, four counts of recklessly endangering another person, and one count of reckless driving; on appeal, the question is whether there was sufficient evidence to infer Jackson County venue.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was venue proven to be in Jackson County beyond a reasonable doubt?	Davis: no admissible evidence tied conduct to Jackson County.	Davis: venue cannot be inferred from evidence about Medford location.	Yes; venue properly inferred in Jackson County.
Did the trial court err in denying judgment of acquittal on venue grounds?	Davis: trial court erred by relying on mere inferences.	Davis: insufficient evidence to prove venue.	No; evidence supported venue inference beyond mere speculation.

State v. Cervantes, 319 Or. 121 (1994) (venue may be inferred from circumstantial evidence when proof of county is not direct)
State v. Tirado, 118 Or. App. 294 (1993) (insufficient to prove Jackson County venue without location evidence)
State v. Means, 213 Or. App. 268 (2007) (need for direct evidence of county location; cannot rely on unrelated local facts)
State v. Lopez-Medina, 143 Or. App. 195 (1996) (avoid impermissible stack of inferences; require logical probability)
State v. Piazza, 170 Or. App. 628 (2000) (avoid excessive speculation in venue inference)