State v. Davis

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 02-23-2012
  • Case #: A141637
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Brewer, C.J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; and Sercombe, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Circumstantial evidence may be used to establish trial venue.

Defendant appealed her convictions for driving under the influence of intoxicants, recklessly endangering another person, and reckless driving because the State failed to adduce evidence that showed her charged crimes were committed within the venue boundaries of the trial court that convicted her. The defendant and four children entered into a Medford, Oregon restaurant. In the restaurant, the defendant appeared intoxicated and unable to stay awake. Upon exiting, a witness followed the defendant and relayed to police the approximate whereabouts of the defendant. The defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants as she was heading northbound on I-5. The State is required to show venue in addition to the regular elements of an offense. Venue may be established using circumstantial evidence that lacks impermissible speculation. The State cannot show venue by stacking inferences or inferential leaps. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the defendant's conviction because the defendant was seen at a restaurant in Medford which is in Jackson County and the court’s jurisdiction. Affirmed.

Advanced Search