Home/Washington Supreme Court/State v. Smith

State v. Smith

397 P.2d 416, 65 Wash. 2d 372, 1964 Wash. LEXIS 491
Washington Supreme Court·Decided December 10, 1964·No. 37401·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Smith, 397 P.2d 416, 65 Wash. 2d 372, 1964 Wash. LEXIS 491 (Wash. 1964).

397 P.2d 416 (State v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hickman
135 Wash. 2d 97 (Washington Supreme Court, 1998)
State v. Johnson
727 P.2d 693 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1986)
State v. Marino
674 P.2d 171 (Washington Supreme Court, 1984)
State v. Brown
627 P.2d 132 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1981)
In re the Welfare of Cleere
536 P.2d 182 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1975)
State v. Escue
495 P.2d 351 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1972)
State v. Rogers
402 P.2d 501 (Washington Supreme Court, 1965)