State v. Lahmann, Ca2006-03-058 (4-16-2007)State v. Lahmann, Ca2006-03-058 (4-16-2007)
{¶ 2} On November 16, 2005, Dan Lane was at his home at 5436 Lakeside Drive when at approximately 6:00 p.m., he and his mother heard a car pull up to their house. At first, Lane thought it was a friend whom he had invited to come over, but then Lane heard "a bunch of banging sounds." Lane loоked out the window and saw appellant — whose sister *2 Lane had once dated — "trying to punch out [Lane's] car window with his fist."
{¶ 3} Lane ran outside, with his mother following him, and saw appellant kicking the car. Upon seeing Lane, appellant started to run after him, threatening to "kick his ass." Lane retreated to his house, pushing his mother back inside. When Lane's father came outside, apparently in resрonse to the shouting, appellant ran down the street, jumped in a truck, and drove off.
{¶ 4} On December 19, 2005, appellant was arrested and charged with one count of criminal damaging in violation of Fairfield Codified Ordinance ("FCO") 541.03(a)(1), a misdemeanor of the second degree, and one count of menacing in violation of FCO 537.06(a), a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.
{¶ 5} On March 2, 2006, appеllant's case was tried to an acting judge of the Fairfield Municipal Court. The only witness called by the city of Fairfield was Lane, who testified to the facts related above. Appellant testified that he "wasn't in Fairfield that day at all."
{¶ 6} At the close of evidence, the trial court found appellant not guilty of menacing, but guilty of criminal damaging. The trial court sentenced appellant to 90 days in the county jail, with 85 of those days suspended; imposed a $750 fine, with $500 suspended; and ordered appellant to serve two years of probation.
{¶ 7} Appellant now appeals his conviction and sentence for criminal damaging and assigns the following as error:
{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 9} "A DEFENDANT WAS DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL UNDER THE
{¶ 10} Appellant argues that his trial counsel provided him with constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to raise a
{¶ 11} In order to prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a criminal defendant must make the two-pronged showing set forth in Strickland v. Washington (1984),
{¶ 12}
{¶ 13} In ruling on a
{¶ 14} "`Venue' commonly refers to the appropriate place of trial for a criminal prosecution * * * as between different geographical subdivisions within a state[.]" State v. Shrum (1982),
{¶ 15}
{¶ 16} "The purpose of the venue requirement is to give the defendant the right to be tried in the vicinity of the alleged criminal activity, and to limit the state from indiscriminately seeking a favorable location for trial that might be an inconvenience or disadvantage to the defendant." State v. Rankin, Clinton App. No. CA2004-06-015,
{¶ 17} Venue is not a material element of any offense charged.State v. Smith,
{¶ 18} Trial courts have broad discretion to determine the facts thаt would establish venue. State v. Taberner (1989),
{¶ 19} When the prosecution fails to prove venue with respect to a charged criminal offense, the defendant is entitled to be discharged from that offense. See, e.g., State v. Trantham (1969),
{¶ 20} In this case, we conclude that the failure of appellant's trial counsel to raise a
{¶ 21} The only evidence the city presented in this case that could have arguably *6 proven venue was that the incident took place at 5436 Lakeside Drive. However, the city failed to adduce any evidence at trial regarding the city, county, or state in which 5436 Lakeside Drive is located. Several courts that have been confronted with similar circumstances have indicated that a street name, standing alone, is insufficient to establish venue.
{¶ 22} For instance, in Trantham,
{¶ 23} In State v. Giles (App. 1974),
{¶ 24} In Gardner,
{¶ 25} In Myers,
{¶ 26} The city concedes that it did not specifically have the victim in this case, Lane, testify that the events giving rise to the criminal damaging charge took place in Fairfield, Butler County, Ohio. Nevertheless, the city points out that Lane testified that all of the events that constituted the crime took place at 5436 Lakeside Drive, which is a street in Fairfield, Butler County, Ohio. The city then asserts that it is a matter of "common knowledge" that Lakeside Drive is within the boundaries of Fairfield, and that the trial court "took judicial notice that Lakeside Drive [i]s within its boundaries." We disagree with these assertions.
{¶ 27}
{¶ 28} However, as one court has noted, if a trial court takes judicial notice of such matters as geographical locations and relationships in the absence of any evidenсe, stipulation or concession, the court should specify on the record in express terms that of which it is taking judicial notice. State v. Davis (Feb. 2, 1983), Hamilton App. No. C-820231. Requiring a trial court to do so is fair and appropriate in light of
{¶ 29} In this case, the city never asked the trial court to take judicial notice that 5436 Lakeside Drive is in Fairfield, Butler County, Ohio, as the city was permitted to do under
{¶ 30} Furthermore, the cases cited by the city in support of its claim that the trial court could have taken judicial notice that Lakeside Drive is in Fairfield, Butler County, Ohio, are readily distinguishable from the case sub judice. For instance, in State v.Barr,
{¶ 31} The city also cites State v. Shuttlesworth (1995),
{¶ 32} Furthermore, we also reject the city's contention that the trial court was able to take judicial notice that the offеnse took place in Fairfield, Butler County, Ohio, because all the events giving rise to the charges against him took place on a "Lakeside Drive" and it is a matter of "common knowledge" that this street is in Fairfield, in Butler County. In this regard, we agree with appellant's contention that it is a matter of "[c]ommon knowledge * * * that there are multiple streets with the same name located in different jurisdictions, counties, and cities."
{¶ 33} Thus, even if it can be said that it is a matter of common knowledge that there is a Lakeside Drive in Fairfield, Butler County, Ohio, it certainly cannot be said it is a matter of common knowledge that there exists a 5436 Lakeside Drive in Fairfield, Butler County, Ohio, since that specific address may actually exist on a different Lakeside Drive in some other jurisdiction.
{¶ 34} In light of the foregoing, we conclude that testimony showing that an offense occurred at a particular street address, standing alone, is generally insufficient to prove venue, since such addresses often are not "sufficiently unique" to permit the conclusion that the address is located in a particular city or county. Consequently, the trial court could not take judicial notice pursuant to
{¶ 35} We also note that the city has made no argument with respect to whether the trial court could have taken judiciаl notice of the fact that 5436 Lakeside Drive is within the boundaries of Fairfield, in Butler County, Ohio, pursuant to
{¶ 36} Generally, a map of Fairfield would show there is a Lakeside Drive that is entirely within the city's jurisdictional limits. However, these maps usually will not show the specific street addresses on Fairfield's Lakeside Drive. Consequently, these maps will not establish whether a specific address on that street is actually located within Fairfield, Butler County, Ohio, and not in some other jurisdiction that also has a Lakeside Drive.
{¶ 37} A resort to the records of the county's recorder's office would reveal this type of information with respеct to the specific address given in this case. However, one court of appeals has found that a trial court was not allowed to take judicial notice pursuant to
{¶ 38} "There is no evidence in the record of this case that proves that plaintiffs were property owners and taxpayers of Jefferson County. When defense counsel called this fact to the attention of the trial court, counsel for plaintiffs asked the trial court, pursuant to Evid.R. *11
201(D), to take judicial notice that the plaintiffs are property owners pursuant to
{¶ 39} " * * *
{¶ 40} "Counsel for plaintiffs argued thаt the question whether plaintiffs were property owners and taxpayers of Jefferson County could be readily determined at the county recorder's office in the courthouse.
{¶ 41} "The trial court in its `Findings of Fact' found that plaintiffs were property owners and taxpayers of the city of Steubenville and the Indian Creek School District but did not state the basis of such finding.
{¶ 42} "We hold that placing the burden оn the trial judge to check the records of the county recorder's office to determine whether plaintiffs were property owners and taxpayers is not `capable of * * * ready determination' within the meaning of
{¶ 43} "Therefore, we hold that the trial judge could not take judicial notice that plaintiffs were property owners and taxpayers under the facts of this case." Country Club Hills Homeowners Assn.,
{¶ 44} It must be noted that Country Club Hills Homeowners Assn. was decided in 1981, and it has arguably become easier to access the records of the county recorder's office via the internet. Nevertheless, while access to those records may be easier, it still does not render any information that a court may be able to obtain over the internet "capable of * * * ready determination" within the meaning of
{¶ 45} In light of the foregoing, we conclude that appellant has met his heavy burden under both the performance and prejudice prongs of theStrickland standard. Specifically, the failure of appellant's counsel to raise a
{¶ 46} Appellant also argues that his trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance by failing to file a timely notice of alibi with respect to а number of witnesses who were allegedly willing to testify that appellant was not in Fairfield on the day in question. However, this argument has been rendered moot as a result of our ruling on the issue of venue. See
{¶ 47} Appellant's first assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 48} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 49} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ENTERED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO FIND DEFENDANT GUILTY."
{¶ 50} Assignment of Error No. 3:
{¶ 51} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT ENTERED A JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT WHICH WAS AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL."
{¶ 52} In his second and third assignment of error, appellant argues that his conviction and sentence for criminal damaging are against the sufficiency and manifest weight of the evidence. However, both of these arguments have been rendered moot as a result of our *13
disposition of appellant's first assignment of error. See
{¶ 53} The trial court's judgment is reversed and defendant is ordered discharged from the offense of criminal damaging.
POWELL, P.J. and YOUNG, J., concur.