Opinion ID: 6278073
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The forbidden conduct;

Text: b. The attendant circumstances specified in the definition and grading of the offense; c. The required culpability; d. Any required result; and e. The nonexistence of a defense as to which there is evidence in the case sufficient to give rise to a reasonable doubt on the issue. Although the district court instructed the jury to determine if the offense occurred in Cass County, the location of the conduct is not an essential element of the offense under the statutory language in N.D.C.C. § 12.1-01-03(1). The location of the crime relates to the appropriate venue for trial of the offense. The North Dakota Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 18, confers venue for a criminal trial “in the county where the offense was committed[.]” “An act in furtherance of the crime that occurs in a county confers jurisdiction for trial of that crime in that county.” State v. Martinsons, 462 N.W.2d 458, 460 (N.D. 1990) (citing State v. Patten, 353 N.W.2d 26 (N.D. 1984)). [¶13] The evidence presented at trial included the testimony of three Fargo police officers regarding their investigation. Snapchat geolocation data was also introduced, which placed Samaniego and the victim in Cass County on the evening and early morning hours that the crime occurred. Samaniego also failed to assert, prior to trial, there had been a defect in the prosecution based on an improper venue as required by our rules governing criminal procedure. N.D.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(3)(A)(i). Regardless of whether the district court properly included the location of Samaniego’s act as a required finding of the jury, there is sufficient evidence that acts in furtherance of the crime occurred in Cass County.