Opinion
Argued March 18, 1974
Decided May 2, 1974
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, DOUGLAS F. YOUNG, J.
Eugene Murphy, James J. McDonough and Matthew Muraskin for appellant.
William Cahn, District Attorney ( Henry P. DeVine and John P. Della Ratta of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM. Venue was properly laid in Nassau County. CPL 20.40 (subd. 1, par. [a]) requires only that it be proved that conduct occurred within the county sufficient to establish one element of the offense. While venue may be established by a preponderance of the evidence ( People v. Hetenyi, 304 N.Y. 80, 84) in this instance the trial court's charge inadvertently called for a higher quantum of proof — beyond a reasonable doubt. On this record we agree with the Appellate Division that the jury was justified in finding, even under the more stringent standard, that defendant's conduct in Nassau County was sufficient to establish that his intent to murder was formulated in that county.
We have examined defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.
Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, RABIN and STEVENS concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.