Case Name: HUNTER v. THE STATE
Court: Court of Appeals of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1989-04-03
Citations: 191 Ga. App. 219
Docket Number: A89A0147
Parties: HUNTER v. THE STATE.
Judges: Deen, P. J., Banke, P. J., Birdsong and Pope, JJ., concur. Carley, C. J., McMurray, P. J., Sognier and Ben-ham, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: Georgia Appeals Reports
Volume: 191
Pages: 219–222

Head Matter:
A89A0147.
HUNTER v. THE STATE.
(381 SE2d 525)

Opinion:
Beasley, Judge.
Defendant was convicted in Coweta County of theft by receiving stolen property and enumerates as error the lack of proof of venue.
Shortly following the occurrence of two burglaries in Coweta County, an investigator with that county's sheriffs department was informed that defendant had the property taken in the burglaries. The investigator went to defendant's home and, with the consent of defendant's wife, searched and found several of the stolen items.
Venue in criminal cases must be proved as a jurisdictional fact beyond a reasonable doubt; otherwise the judgment is void. Trogdon v. State, 176 Ga. App. 246, 247 (1) (335 SE2d 481) (1985). In a prosecution for theft by receiving stolen property, venue lies in any county in which the accused exercised control over the stolen property. Barfield v. State, 149 Ga. App. 166 (2) (253 SE2d 781) (1979).
"While it is true that where venue is not contested slight proof will suffice (Loftin v. State, 230 Ga. 92 (195 SE2d 402) (1974)), it must nevertheless be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Parks v. State, 212 Ga. 433, 435 (93 SE2d 663) (1956)." Carter v. State, 146 Ga. App. 681 (247 SE2d 191) (1978). What is the proof that defendant's home is located in Coweta County?
The investigator who followed up the lead that the stolen property was at defendant's residence, testified that he was employed as such by the Coweta County Sheriff's Department. He further testified that he "was in Palmetto when [he] received the information so [he] rode over to Mr. Hunter's residence. . . ." He had just testified that Hunter lived "right behind" the truck stop, the site of one burglary, and had earlier testified that the truck stop was "in Palmetto." There was also testimony to the effect that defendant's home was not far from Weldon Road, site of the other burglary.
The investigator searched the premises pursuant to consent given by Mrs. Hunter. The investigator would not have had jurisdiction to do so if the premises were in Fulton County. OCGA § 15-16-1 (a) and (c) (1) (B); 15-16-23. This is not a situation where extraterritorial aid was invoked, as provided for in the Georgia Mutual Aid Act. OCGA § 36-69-1 et seq. There was and is no contention that the investigator acted outside his territorial jurisdiction. Compare State v. Giangregorio, 181 Ga. App. 324 (352 SE2d 193) (1986); Britt v. State, 186 Ga. App. 418, 419 (3) (367 SE2d 298) (1988). Thus the State is at least entitled to an inference that he acted with authority, which would be within Coweta County. It is a "well settled principle that public officials shall be presumed to have performed their duties . . . unless clearly proven otherwise." Richmond County Hosp. Auth. v. Richmond County, 255 Ga. 183, 192 (2) (c) (336 SE2d 562) (1985); OCGA § 24-1-1 (6).
This evidence, together with the "right behind" and "not far from" evidence pointed out by the separate dissent, is at least as strong if not stronger "slight evidence" than the two facts shown in Melton v. State, 252 Ga. 97 (311 SE2d 471) (1984). There the facts which were deemed sufficient were that the crimes occurred at the home of the victim and that she attended school in the Fulton County school system.
Like Melton, this is not a case where venue was contested. Defendant did not even challenge the proof of venue in his motion for new trial or in his motion for directed verdict. The latter was based on purported absences of evidence but these related to certain other elements and not venue.
Certainly the State should be careful to clearly prove venue, which generally is not a difficult burden. At the very least it will avoid the raising of a technical legal question which is unrelated to whether a crime was committed by defendant or not. But where the proof adduced meets the standard of "slight evidence" set by the Supreme Court, the judgment is to be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Deen, P. J., Banke, P. J., Birdsong and Pope, JJ., concur. Carley, C. J., McMurray, P. J., Sognier and Ben-ham, JJ., dissent.