State v. Smith
This text of 397 P.2d 416 (State v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Washington Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
397 P.2d 416, 65 Wash. 2d 372, 1964 Wash. LEXIS 491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-smith-wash-1964.