State v. Smith
Washington Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The only issue raised is that the state failed in its proof of venue.
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).
We are satisfied that the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. HardamonWashington Supreme Court · 1947
- State v. KincaidWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- State v. StaffordWashington Supreme Court · 1954
- State v. HurlbertWashington Supreme Court · 1929
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. HickmanWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- State v. MarinoWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1981
- State v. EscueCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1972
- State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1986
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.