COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Willis, Annunziata and Overton 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

KEITH ERIC WILLIAMS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 2203-97-2 JUDGE JERE M. H. WILLIS, JR. 

 JULY 7, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HANOVER COUNTY 

Richard H. C. Taylor, Judge 

 Kelly A. Halligan (Halligan & Halligan, P.C., 

on brief), for appellant. 

 Thomas D. Bagwell, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 On appeal from his conviction for conspiracy to distribute 

marijuana, Keith Eric Williams contends that the Commonwealth 

failed to prove venue and therefore the trial court erred in 

denying his motion to strike the evidence. We affirm the 

judgment of the trial court. 

 I. 

 On appeal, we review questions concerning venue to determine 

"whether the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to 

the Commonwealth, is sufficient to support the [trial court's] 

venue findings." Cheng v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 26, 36, 393 

S.E.2d 599, 604 (1990). 

 On January 21, 1996, Richmond Police Officer Richard J. 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

Greeneich received a page from Jodie Williams (Jodie), Williams' 

wife. At that time, Greeneich was working undercover and was 

employed as a bouncer at the Rack and Roll Cafe in downtown 

Richmond. When Greeneich telephoned Jodie at her home in Hanover 

County, she asked him whether he wanted some marijuana. 

Greeneich told her that he was going out of town and would call 

her upon his return. 

 On January 26, 1996, Greeneich telephoned Jodie at her 

Hanover County residence. Williams answered the phone. He asked 

whether he should bring Greeneich some marijuana that night. 

Greeneich said that he had limited funds, but that Williams 

should bring the marijuana. Greeneich did not see Williams that 

night. 

 The following day, Greeneich telephoned Jodie's Hanover 

County residence and spoke with both Williams and Jodie. 

Williams apologized for not appearing the previous night, and 

said that he would bring marijuana to the Rack and Roll Cafe that 

night. 

 That evening, Jodie paged Greeneich at the Rack and Roll 

Cafe. When Greeneich returned her call, Jodie expressed concern 

as to whether Williams had arrived, because he had the "stuff" in 

her vehicle. Greeneich told her that he would tell Williams to 

call her at her residence. When Williams arrived, he informed 

Greeneich that he had brought marijuana and that the price was 

$180 per ounce. Greeneich replied that Jodie had given him a 
- 3 - 

better price. Greeneich telephoned Jodie at her Hanover County 

home, and they agreed to a price of $150 per ounce. Greeneich 

then informed Williams of the agreement, and advised him to call 

Jodie if he had any questions. Shortly thereafter, Williams sold 

the marijuana to Greeneich for $150 per ounce. 

 II. 

 Except as otherwise provided by law, the 

prosecution of a criminal case shall be had 

in the county or city in which the offense 

was committed. 

Code § 19.2-244. 

 [T]he burden is upon the Commonwealth to 

prove venue by evidence which is either 

direct or circumstantial. Such evidence must 

furnish the foundation for a "strong 

presumption" that the offense was committed 

within the jurisdiction of the court. 

Pollard v. Commonwealth, 220 Va. 723, 725, 261 S.E.2d 328, 330 

(1980) (citing Keesee v. Commonwealth, 216 Va. 174, 175, 217 

S.E.2d 808, 809-10 (1975)). 

 Sufficient evidence supports the trial court's determination 

that venue lay in Hanover County. In conspiracy cases, venue is 

proper where the conspiracy is made or where an act is committed 

in furtherance of the conspiracy. Henry v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. 

App. 194, 199, 342 S.E.2d 655, 657-58 (1986). The evidence 

supports a finding that Williams and Jodie conspired to 

distribute marijuana. Thus, the only question is whether the 

conspiracy or some act in furtherance thereof occurred in Hanover 

County. 
- 4 - 

 Greeneich acknowledged that he did not know whether Jodie 

had call forwarding, and admitted that he did not know whether 

Williams was actually in Hanover County when he spoke to him on 

the telephone on January 27, 1996. However, the Commonwealth was 

required to raise only a "strong presumption" that venue lay in 

Hanover County. 

 The evidence supports the inference that Williams and Jodie 

conspired to distribute marijuana while they were in Hanover 

County and that they acted in Hanover County in furtherance of 

that conspiracy. See Henry, 2 Va. App. at 198, 342 S.E.2d at 657 

("Each member of a conspiracy is responsible for the acts of 

others in furtherance of the conspiracy, and all conspirators, 

even those without knowledge of the particular act, may be tried 

where any of those acts are performed."); Zuniga v. Commonwealth, 

7 Va. App. 523, 532, 375 S.E.2d 381, 387 (1988) (finding venue 

for conspiracy where co-conspirator telephoned defendant). The 

evidence sufficiently proves that Jodie resided in Hanover 

County, that Greeneich telephoned Jodie at her house there on 

several occasions, and that Greeneich spoke with both Williams 

and Jodie, who were then in Hanover County, concerning the 

purchase of marijuana. 

 Accordingly, venue was proper in Hanover County. The 

judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 Affirmed.