Case ID: wash-2d_65/html/0372-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[No. 37401.
    Department One.
    December 10, 1964.]
    The State of Washington, Respondent, v. E. B. Smith, Appellant.
    
    
      Peterson, Taylor & Day, for appellant.
    
      Clarence J. Rabideau and Laurence S. Moore, for respondent.
    
      
      Reported in 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.