Opinion ID: 1914917
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Venue and Identity

Text: Freeman asserts that the district court erred in overruling his motion for directed verdict or for dismissal at the close of the State's case, arguing that the State failed to prove venue and to prove his identity. Freeman argues that the State did not present competent evidence that the crime occurred in Nemaha County or that he was the William Brouder Freeman accused of the sexual assault. [8] This court has held that venue may be proved like any other fact in a criminal case. State v. Liberator, 197 Neb. 857, 251 N.W.2d 709 (1977). `It need not be established by direct testimony, nor in the words of the information, but if from the facts in evidence the only rational conclusion which can be drawn is that the crime was committed in the county alleged, the proof is sufficient.'. . . Id. at 858, 251 N.W.2d at 710, quoting Gates v. State, 160 Neb. 722, 71 N.W.2d 460 (1955). Accord State v. Laflin, 201 Neb. 824, 272 N.W.2d 376 (1978). In State v. Scott, 225 Neb. 146, 152, 403 N.W.2d 351, 355 (1987), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Culver, 233 Neb. 228, 444 N.W.2d 662 (1989), the defendant asserted that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the case against him when the State did not establish venue, a jurisdictional element of the State's proof. This court reviewed the record and found that while the State had failed to directly prove venue, it provided evidence that the crimes occurred in Hitchcock County. A contract admitted into evidence included language identifying the property's location as Hitchcock County. Other evidence identified Hitchcock County as the location of the grain warehouse. Testimony was offered from the Hitchcock County sheriff, and another witness lived in that county. We held that sufficient proof was offered to demonstrate that the crimes were committed in Hitchcock County and that the trial court correctly overruled the defendant's motion for a directed verdict based on a failure to establish venue. In the case at bar, the victim testified that she was a student at Peru State College and that the party she attended was in a house six blocks from campus. One of the residents of the house testified that she lived on Fifth Street in Peru in Nemaha County. Another of the house's residents testified to the specific address of the house. Lottman, a Nemaha County deputy sheriff, investigated the incident. A criminal investigator with the Nebraska State Patrol testified that he collected a comparative DNA sample from Freeman, and a criminalist with the Nebraska State Patrol crime laboratory testified as to the results of the DNA testing. The Miranda form signed by Freeman and entered into evidence indicates that it is the form used by the sheriff's office in Nemaha County. The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from this evidence is that the incident occurred in Peru, Nemaha County, Nebraska. Venue was adequately proved. Freeman also argues that the district court erred in failing to grant his motion for directed verdict or dismissal because the State failed to prove his identity beyond a reasonable doubt. In his brief, Freeman states, What is obvious is that no one was asked to identify or did identify the defendant as the William Freeman they were referring to. Brief for appellant at 32. Although DNA evidence linked Freeman to the assault, he argues that the person who testified to collecting the swabs for the DNA test never identified him as the individual from whom the samples were collected. A similar argument was made in State v. Kaba, 217 Neb. 81, 83, 349 N.W.2d 627, 630 (1984), where the court noted: [U]nfortunately, the county attorney failed to ask any State's witness two basic questions: (1) Is the defendant, Kenneth Kaba, in the courtroom today? (2) Would you point out the defendant, Kenneth Kaba? Contrary to the defendant's position, however, under the facts of this case the omission of an in-court identification does not require acquittal. In Kaba, this court reviewed holdings on this issue from other states. In State v. Hutchinson, 99 N.M. 616, 661 P.2d 1315 (1983), the court ruled that sufficient evidence was presented to allow the jury to draw the inference that the person on trial had committed the crimes. In State v. Hill, 83 Wash. 2d 558, 520 P.2d 618 (1974), the appellate court held that while the omission of specific in-court identification was not recommended, the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's identity. The Kaba court then applied the rationale of these cases to the evidence and found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Kenneth Kaba who appeared in the courtroom during the trial was the Kenneth Kaba whose behavior was reported by the witnesses. 217 Neb. at 86, 349 N.W.2d at 631. This issue was also raised in State v. Hoxworth, 218 Neb. 647, 358 N.W.2d 208 (1984), where we concluded that the identity of the defendant was not at issue and that he was present at trial. This court also noted that the testimony was filled with references to the defendant by various witnesses. In the present case, at the outset of the trial, the district court noted that Freeman was present with counsel. Five individuals who were friends or classmates of Freeman testified, and as we noted in Kaba, It is inconceivable that [the witness] would sit silently by, knowing the wrong man had been brought to trial. 217 Neb. at 88, 349 N.W.2d at 632. Two law enforcement officers who had contact with Freeman also testified. None of these individuals suggested that the person on trial and present in the courtroom was not the same person they knew as William Freeman. The district court did not err in denying Freeman's motion for directed verdict or for dismissal on the basis of a failure to prove identity. This assignment of error is without merit.