COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judg es Benton, Bray and Bumgardner Argued at Salem, Virginia

DAVID ANDREW LAWHORN MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 2100-98-3 JUDGE RICHAR D S. BRAY OCTOBER 26, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

FROM THE CIRCUIT COUR T OF AUGUSTA COUNTY Thomas H. Wood, Judge (William E. Bo bbitt, Jr., Publ ic Defender, on brief), for appellant. Appellant submitting on brief. Jeffrey S. Shapiro, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.

* Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, recodifying Code § 17-116.010, this opinion is not designated for publication. David Andrew Lawhorn (defenda nt) was convicte d in a bench trial for posses sion of a fire arm by a convic ted felon, a violation of Code § 18.2-308.2. On appeal, he chal lenges only the sufficiency of the evid ence to prove venue in Augusta County. Finding no error, we affirm the trial court. The parties ar e fully conversa nt with the re cord, and this memorandum opinion re cites only those fa cts necess ary to a disposition of the appeal.I. In reviewing suffic iency of the evidence , we consider the record "in the light most favorable to the Common wealth," "discard[ing] al l evidence of the accused that conf licts with that of the Commonweal th and regard[ing ] as true all cr edible evidence favorable to the Common wealth and all fair in ferences reasonably deducible th erefrom." Lea v. Commonwealth , 16 Va. App. 300, 303, 429 S.E.2d 477, 479 (1 993). The credibility of the witnesses, the weight accorded testim ony, and the inferences drawn from proven facts are matter s to be determ ined by the fact finder. See Long v. Commonwealth , 8 Va. App. 194, 199, 379 S.E.2d 47 3, 476 (1989). The judgment of the trial court will not be di sturbed unless plainly wrong or unsuppor ted by the evidence. See Code § 8.01-680. Viewed accordingly, the in stant record discloses that Sergeant A.C. Po wers of the Augu sta County Sherif f's Department secured a warrant to search defend ant’s residence an d automobile. The warrant was su pported by information pr ovided by defendant's estranged wife, Sh elby Lawhorn, which pert ained to a stolen "four wheeler" and certain fi rearms. During the re lated search , Powers discovered a 12-gauge shotgun in a bedr oom of the home, a 9-millimeter pistol in the vehicle, and the four-wheeler "setting [sic] right behind " "a couple of old sh eds" "across from" the residence. Po wers testified that th e house was located in

- 2 -Craigsville, Virginia, and that "the four wh eeler was re covered in the Craigsvill e, Augusta Sp rings area." At the conclusion of the Commonwealth 's case-in-chief, defendant moved th e court to strike the ev idence on the firearm charge, arguing th at the record failed to establish that the offense occurr ed in Augusta Coun ty. The court de nied the motion, taking "judicial notice ," without obje ction, that "both Augusta Springs and Crai gsville are in . . . Augusta Coun ty." Called as a defens e witness, Shelby La whorn testif ied that the couple acquired th e residence by "deed of gift" in 1996 or 1997. However, in an effort to "get [defenda nt] in trouble," Mrs. Lawhorn admitted informing Se rgeant Powers that she had "i nherited some land in Craigsvi lle" and had "heard through the grapevine that there was some stolen property out there," spec ifically mentioning a "four whee ler" and "the guns." She furthe r testified that "the house is in Rockbridge County" and related property taxes were paid to that county, contra ry to her prio r statement to Powers that the real ty was situated in Augusta Co unty. Defendant also testified that the property was located in Rockbridge County, but introduced neither the related deed nor tax verification. At the conclusion of all the evidence, defendant re newed his motion to stri ke, again challenging the suffic iency of the evidence to esta blish venue. In denying the mo tion, the court commented that
- 3 -[t]he Commonwealth must produce evidence sufficient to give rise to a strong presumption that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the Court and what we have got here is the clear testimony of Mr. Powers that the Rockbridge line is a half a mile from where he was and we have the testimony of the Lawhorn's [sic], neither of whom are credible witnesses to the effect that it is in Rockbridge County. So this Court will find that it is a matter of fact in this case that this house in which this 12 gauge was found and the car in which the 9 millimeter were found were both located in Augusta County when they were found by Deputy Powers. Defendant was subsequently convicted for the subject offense and initiated this appeal.

II. Generally, "the prosecution of a criminal case shall be had in the county or city in which the offense was committed." Code § 19.2-244. To establish venue, the Commonwealth must "produce evidence sufficient to give rise to a 'strong presumption' that the offense was committed within the jurisdiction of the court, and this may be accomplished by either direct or circumstantial evidence." Cheng v. Commonwealth , 240 Va. 26, 36, 393 S.E.2d 599, 604 (1990) (citation omitted). "'The facts proved may be aided by judicial notice of geographical facts that are matters of common knowledge or shown by maps in common use.'" Sutherland v. Commonwealth , 6 Va. App. 378, 381, 368 S.E.2d 295, 297 (1988) (citation omitted).

- 4 -Here, Sergeant Powers' testimony established that the offending firearms were found in the constructive possession of defendant on property located in Craigsville, Augusta County, Virginia. Without objection, the trial court took judicial notice that Craigsville is located in Augusta County and expressly rejected testimony of both defendant and Mrs. Lawhorn to the contrary. See Moore v. Commonwealth , 25 Va. App. 277, 289, 487 S.E.2d 864, 870 (1997). Thus, the evidence sufficiently supported the finding of a strong presumption that the offense was committed in Augusta County. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. Affirmed.

- 5 -