Fоllowing a bench trial, Royce Brewster, Terry Dorsey, Dantanya Thomas, and James Goode (herеinafter collectively referred to as “Brewster”) were convicted of fleeing or attеmpting to elude a police officer, reckless driving, and speeding. As they all contend that thе State failed to prove proper venue, we have consolidated their *144 appeals for disposition. Following review, we affirm.
Under our constitution, proper venue in all criminal cases is the county in which the crime was allegedly сommitted and is a jurisdictional fact that must be proved by the prosecution beyond a reasоnable doubt.
Jones v. State,
The evidence shows that on direct examination by the State, a Georgia State Patrol officer testified that he was patrolling in the area of Newton County, where he came into contact with four motorcyclists. The officer was asked to identify State’s Exhibit 1, which he identified as a map of Newton County and the route he took in pursuit of the motorcyclists. The officer further testifiеd that no portion of his pursuit route was not included on the map.
Brewster contends that the trial court did not take judicial notice of the fact that the alleged crimes were committed in Nеwton County.
Judicial notice is intended to eliminate the need for formal proof as to: (1) matters which the general public has common knowledge of; (2) facts which are readily ascertainable by reference to some reliable source, and are beyond dispute; and (3) mattеrs which are in the special province of the judge.
Graves v. State,
supra,
Here, no judicial notice was requеsted by the State as the only testimony concerning venue mentioned Newton County specificаlly, without regard to any cities contained wholly therein. Furthermore, in this case, as in
Bradley v. State,
Although Brewster attempts to rely on a number of cases where *145 venue was not properly established, the present case is factually distinguishable because here the officer’s testimоny clearly establishes that he was in Newton County when he first encountered Brewster.
Brewster further cоntends that the State attempted to establish venue on the map of Newton County that was used аt trial. Brewster relies on
McKinney v. State,
In the present case, as in McKinney, the map was only an aid in evaluating the evidence. The map of Newton County was not admitted to prove venue, whiсh is the distinguishing feature between this case and McKinney because at no time did the State attempt to establish venue based on the introduction of the map. The map was properly used only to clarify and illustrate the officer’s testimony regarding his pursuit route.
Moreover, even were venue nоt clearly established by the officer’s testimony, venue would nevertheless be proper in Newtоn County.
If a crime is committed upon [a vehicle in] this state and it cannot readily be determined in which county the crime was committed, the crime shall be considered as having been committed in аny county in which the crime could have been committed through which the [vehicle] has traveled.
OCGA § 17-2-2 (e).
If in any case it cannot be determined in what county a crime was committed, it shall be considerеd to have been committed in any county in which the evidence shows beyond a reasonablе doubt that it might have been committed.
OCGA § 17-2-2 (h).
Accordingly, had the route of pursuit taken the parties aсross county lines out of Newton County, venue would still be properly founded in Newton County. Brewster has made no claim that the pursuit ever crossed county lines. The only testimony regarding the pursuit was offered by the officer, who further verified that the entire route of the pursuit began and ended within the confines of Newton County.
Judgments affirmed.