State v. Smith, 397 P.2d 416

Per Curiam.

The only issue raised is that the state failed in its proof of venue.

To prove venue, it is not essential that some witness testify directly that the offense was committed in a designated county. It is enough if it apears at the trial indirectly that the venue is properly laid. State v. Stafford (1954), 44 Wn. (2d) 353, 356, 357, 267 P. (2d) 699; State v. Hardamon (1947), 29 Wn. (2d) 182, 188, 186 P. (2d) 634; State v. Hurlbert (1929), 153 Wash. 60, 62, 279 Pac. 123 (and cases cited); State v. Kincaid (1912), 69 Wash. 273, 274, 275, 124 Pac. 684 (and cases cited).

We are satisfied that the state produced evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the offenses for which the defendant was on trial were committed in Franklin County.

The judgment and sentence is affirmed.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Smith

Court Name: Washington Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 10, 1964

Citations: 397 P.2d 416; 65 Wash. 2d 372; 1964 Wash. LEXIS 491; 37401

Docket Number: 37401

Court Abbreviation: Wash.