Opinion
No. 37401.
December 10, 1964.
[1] Criminal Law — Venue — Proof. To prove venue in a criminal prosecution, it is not essential that there be direct testimony that the offense was committed in a particular county; it being sufficient if it appears at the trial indirectly that the venue is properly laid.
See Ann. 76 A.L.R. 1034; Am. Jur., Criminal Law (1st ed. § 232).
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Franklin County, No. 2159, John T. Day, J., entered November 19, 1963. Affirmed.
Prosecution for robbery. Defendant appeals from a conviction and sentence.
Peterson, Taylor Day, for appellant.
Clarence J. Rabideau and Laurence S. Moore, for respondent.
The only issue raised is that the state failed in its proof of venue.
[1] 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 appears 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 Wn. 60, 62, 279 P. 123 (and cases cited); State v. Kincaid (1912), 69 Wn. 273, 274, 275, 124 P. 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.