State v. Smith

Decided December 10, 1964

Washington Supreme Court · decided 1964-12-10

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[T]he situs of a crime is not an element of that crime but is a matter of venue. The State may prove venue by circumstantial evidence. It is sufficient if it appears at trial indirectly that the venue is properly laid.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Hickman, State v. Hickman

Relies on State v. Kincaid · State v. Hurlbert

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1964-12-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 1998

9 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 The only issue raised is that the state failed in its proof of venue.

¶2 To prove venue, it is not essential that some witness testify directly that the offense was committed in a designated county. It is enough if it apears at the trial indirectly that the venue is properly laid. State v. Stafford (1954), 44 Wn. (2d) 353, 356, 357, 267 P. (2d) 699; State v. Hardamon (1947), 29 Wn. (2d) 182, 188, 186 P. (2d) 634; State v. Hurlbert (1929), 153 Wash. 60, 62, 279 Pac. 123 (and cases cited); State v. Kincaid (1912), 69 Wash. 273, 274, 275, 124 Pac. 684 (and cases cited).

¶3 We are satisfied that the state produced evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the offenses for which the defendant was on trial were committed in Franklin County.

¶4 The judgment and sentence is affirmed.