COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Elder and Senior Judge Cole 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

JAMES BRAXTON FOLEY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0977-96-2 JUDGE LARRY G. ELDER 

 FEBRUARY 18, 1997 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 

Robert W. Duling, Judge 

 Edward D. Barnes (Michael HuYoung; Laura A. 

Thornton; Edward D. Barnes & Associates, 

P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 Margaret Ann B. Walker, Assistant Attorney 

General (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee. 

 James Braxton Foley (appellant) appeals his conviction of 

driving while intoxicated in violation of Code § 18.2-266. 

He contends that the evidence was insufficient to prove that 

venue was proper in the City of Richmond. For the reasons that 

follow, we affirm. 

 Code § 19.2-244 states that "the prosecution of a criminal 

case shall be had in the county or city in which the offense was 

committed." "[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 

 

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

designated for publication. 
 -2- 

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, 810 (1975)). "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." McClain v. 

Commonwealth, 189 Va. 847, 853, 55 S.E.2d 49, 55 (1949). "When 

the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, . . . we 

must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom." Jones v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 566, 

572, 414 S.E.2d 193, 196 (1992). 

 We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the 

trial court's conclusion that venue was proper in the City of 

Richmond. At trial, Officer Thomas Campbell of the University of 

Richmond Police testified that he observed appellant shortly 

before his arrest on the night of November 3, 1995. Officer 

Campbell testified that he saw appellant driving westbound on 

Lakeview Lane, which is on the campus of the University of 

Richmond. After appellant objected to the venue of his case in 

the City of Richmond, the trial court examined two maps provided 

by the Commonwealth: the first was "ADC's Street Map of Richmond 

and Vicinity, 10th edition" (ADC map) and the second was a map of 

the City of Richmond and environs produced in 1982 by the 

Department of Public Works of the City of Richmond. The trial 

court then took judicial notice of the location of the University 
 -3- 

of Richmond campus in relation to the boundary between Henrico 

County and the City of Richmond and overruled appellant's 

objection regarding venue. Upon close inspection, the ADC map 

indicates that Lakeview Lane is located within the City of 

Richmond's boundaries. Therefore, we cannot say that the trial 

court's conclusion that venue was proper in the City of Richmond 

was plainly wrong or without evidence to support it. 

 Appellant argues that the location of Lakeview Lane is so 

near the boundary of Henrico County that evidence in addition to 

the ADC map is required to prove that Lakeview Lane is in the 

City of Richmond. We disagree. The evidence proved that 

appellant was driving westbound on Lakeview Lane. The ADC map 

clearly indicates that all of Lakeview Lane is within the 

boundaries of the City of Richmond. Because the ADC map clearly 

indicates that no portion of Lakeview Lane lies within Henrico 

County, the Commonwealth was not required to produce additional 

evidence to prove that appellant was within the City of Richmond 

when he was driving on this road. 

 The trial court also based its conclusion that venue was 

proper in the City of Richmond upon its examination of the map 

produced by the Department of Public Works. Appellant does not 

contend that this map failed to show that Lakeview Lane is within 

the City of Richmond. Instead, appellant argues that this map is 

unreliable because of its age and intended use. However, no 

evidence in the record discredits the reliability of this map. 
 -4- 

In addition, a copy of this map is not included in the appellate 

record for our review. Because appellant has not met his burden 

of presenting a sufficient record from which we can determine 

whether the trial court's reliance on this map was erroneous, we 

will presume that no error was committed. See Smith v. 

Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 630, 635, 432 S.E.2d 2, 6 (1993). 

 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction of 

driving while intoxicated in violation of Code § 18.2-266. 

Affirmed.