Court Opinion

ID: 9608583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:14:53.489181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:46.625949
License: Public Domain

ROSSMAN, P. J.,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the majority that the state failed to produce sufficient evidence of venue. Although there may not have been any direct proof of venue, I believe that a reasonable juror could have inferred from the evidence presented that the crime occurred in Coos County. That is all that is required under Oregon law. State v. Miranda, 309 Or 121, 130, 786 P2d 155 (1990); State v. Cooksey, 242 Or 250, 251, 409 P2d 335 (1965).
*435The majority concedes that the jury could have reasonably found that the crime took place in Coos Bay; indeed, the testimony of the arresting officers alone permits that inference. Other evidence from which the jury could have inferred that the crime was committed in Coos Bay was that the victim resides in Coos Bay and the investigating officers were Coos Bay police. Although there is no direct evidence that Coos Bay is situated within the geographical boundary of Coos County, the city and county do share the common name of Coos. I believe that a rational juror, relying on his own judgment and common sense, could infer from this that Coos Bay is located in Coos County. I am not saying that that is a required inference, only that it is a permissible one.
Although there are cities1 with names that match the names of counties that they are not located in, that situation is, by an overwhelming margin, the exception rather than the rule.2 See Oregon Blue Book, 1991-92. Indeed, where a city has a two-word name, and the first word of the name corresponds to the name of a county, in every case the city is situated in the county that the name matches.3 Thus, I do not believe that these jurors needed to rely on their personal or common knowledge to resolve that Coos Bay is located in Coos County. State v. Coffee, 117 Or App 9, 12 n 1, 843 P2d 505 (1992); State v. Tirado, 118 Or App 294, 846 P2d 1201 (1993). That conclusion seems to me to be the common sense of the matter, “and common sense often makes good law.” Peak v. United States, 353 US 43, 46, 77 S Ct 613, 1 L Ed 2d 631 (1957).
Surely, jurors are not required to leave their common sense behind them on the courthouse steps when reporting *436for their fact finding duty, and common sense dictates that the good people who sat on this jury knew that the rape of this 12-year-old child occurred in Coos County. They were, after all, citizens of Coos County who reported for jury duty at the Coos County courthouse. Surely they knew where they were and where the crime was committed. It seems that only the majority has lost its way.
I recognize that venue can become a critical issue in a criminal prosecution. However, in this case, venue does not have one single bit of significance in determining the actual guilt or innocence of defendant. It troubles me that this court builds on such insignificance and seizes on a microscopic technicality to reverse a trial court.
I dissent.

 Although there are numerous mountains, lakes, landmarks and unincorporated townships with names that match the names of counties in which they are not located, it is extremely rare for that situation to occur between an incorporated city and a county.

 Baker City, Baker County; Columbia City, Columbia County; Coos Bay, Coos County; Hood River, Hood River County; Lincoln City, Lincoln County; Marion, Marion County; Jacksonville, Jackson County; Klamath Falls, Klamath County; Lakeview, Lake County; Union, Union County; Tillamook, Tillamook County; Umatilla, Umatilla County; Wallowa, Wallowa County; Yamhill, Yamhill County.

 Baker City, Baker County; Columbia City, Columbia County; Hood River, Hood River County; Lincoln City, Lincoln County; Coos Bay, Coos County; Klamath Falls, Klamath County.