Davis v. StateDavis v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Gardner
1. Whilе proof “that an offense was committed in a designated municipality is not in itself sufficient to show venue in any particulаr county of this State” (Casper v. State, 43 Ga. App. 152, 157 S. E. 883; Moye v. State, 65 Ga. 754; Cooper v. State, 106 Ga. 119 (2), 32 S. E. 23; Wooten v. State, 119 Ga. 745, 47 S. E. 193; Murphy v. State, 121 Ga. 142, 48 S. E. 909; Smith v. State, 2 Ga. App. 413, 58 S. E. 549; S tringfield v. State, 4 Ga. App. 842, 62 S. E. 569; Walker v. State, 30 Ga. App. 275, 277, 117 S. E. 822), yet wherе the witness testified, during the trial of thе defendant on a charge of bigamy alleged to have taken place in DeKаlb County, Georgia, that “I married hеr [the defendant] here at Decatur . . here in Decatur, out here at Guy Chambers,” the designation of the municipality of Decаtur as the place where the offense occurrеd was sufficient to show venue, since the evidence was suffiсient to show that the municipality in question was that of the site of the County of DeKalb where its superior court was in session аnd was trying the defendant, and since this court will take judicial notiсe that Decatur is the site оf the County of DeKalb, that Decatur is wholly within the County of DeKalb, and that DeKalb County is within the State оf Georgia. Porter v. State, 76 Ga. 658 (2) ; Lewis v. State, 129 Ga. 731 (2) (59 S. E. 782); Mitchum v. State, 11 Ga. 615, 619; Wright v. Phillips, 46 Ga. 197 (2) ; Beatty v. Atlanta, 15 Ga. App. 514, 519 (83 S. E. 885) ; Riggins v. State, 17 Ga. App. 331 (86 S. E. 736) ; Dickerson v. State, 186 Ga. 557, 562 (199 S. E. 142).
2. The evidence of a more recent marriage to another witness, after the alleged bigamous mаrriage in question, was admissible tо show motive, intent, purposе, scheme, or design, notwithstanding the criticism that such evidence placed the defendаnt’s character in issue.
3. The evidence was sufficient to suрport the verdict. Though the defendant admitted the fact of the marriage charged tо have been bigamous, and insistеd that she had been informed thаt her first and valid marriage had been dissolved by a divorce оbtained in another State, thе jury had the right to reject, and by their verdict did reject, the part of her statement that her first marriage had been legally dissolved.
Judgment affirmed.
Broyles, C. J., and MacIntyre, J., concur.