Orman v. State
| Decision Date | 28 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--275A31,1--275A31 |
| Citation | 165 Ind.App. 531,332 N.E.2d 818 |
| Parties | Charles L. ORMAN, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Edgar S. Husted, Husted & Husted, Crawfordsville, for defendant-appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before ROBERTSON, C.J., and LOWDERMILK and LYBROOK, JJ.
Charles L. Orman's appeal from a conviction of uttering a forged instrument 1 presents two issues for review:
1. Is the evidence sufficient to prove venue of the offense?
2. Did the trial court err in refusing to give Orman's tendered instruction?
We affirm.
The facts of this case, viewed most favorably to the State, are as follows:
On May 20, 1974, Orman went to the Ranch Supermarket in Crawfordsville, Indiana and successfully presented a check drawn on the account of Edward Services payable to Orman in the amount of $248.51. The check was a forgery written earlier that day by Dorothy Hallett, Services' daughter and Orman's financee.
On appeal, Orman contends the State failed to prove venue of the offense since no witness testified that the Ranch Supermarket was in Montgomery County, Indiana.
In Indiana, a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to be tried in the county in which the crime was committed. Ind.Const. Art. 1 § 13. To sustain a conviction, the record on appeal must show some evidence of proper venue. Woodall v. State (1974) Ind.App., 317 N.E.2d 900. However, that evidence need not be any stronger than that required to establish any other essential fact. Penman v. State (1975) Ind.App. 325 N.E.2d 478.
As stated in Weaver v. State (1963) 243 Ind. 560, 187 N.E.2d 485 at 487:
Although it is better practice, if possible, to prove the venue by direct evidence, this cannot in all cases be done. It is not necessary that venue be proved by direct evidence established by questions and answers specifically naming the particular county and state in which the offense was alleged to have been committed. It is sufficient if facts and circumstances are shown by the evidence from which the jury may find where the crime was committed. (Citations omitted)
In this case, the forged check presented by Orman which was identified at trial by Joseph Utterback, assistant manager of the Ranch Supermarket, and admitted without objection, bore the following endorsement:
Pay to the Order of the Elston Bank & Trust Co.
This evidence is sufficient to set the locus of the offense in Crawfordsville, Indiana and we can take judicial notice of the fact that Crawfordsville is located in Montgomery County. Lindsey v. State (1971) 257 Ind. 78, 272 N.E.2d 458. The evidence is sufficient to prove venue of the offense.
Orman also argues that trial court erred in refusing to give his tendered instruction concerning proof of venue. It is not error to refuse to give a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butler v. State
...detailed route taken to 1217 New Jersey, the jury could reasonably infer the crime was committed in Marion County. See, Orman v. State (1975), Ind.App., 332 N.E.2d 818; Penman v. State, supra; Woodall v. State (1974), 162 Ind.App. 39, 317 N.E.2d 900; Thompson v. State (1973), 156 Ind.App. 1......
-
Castor v. Castor
... ... 'Court further finds that based on the case law in the State of Indiana and based on the fact that it was shown that the petitioner has in excess of $11,000 of personal assets, she is not entitled to any suit ... ...
-
Raymer v. State
...R.R. 3, Shelbyville, and the Sheriff of Shelby County investigated. This evidence is sufficient to establish venue. See Orman v. State (1975), Ind.App., 332 N.E.2d 818.2 We note that the address which Raymer gave for Whitaker at trial does not agree with the address which Raymer contends wa......
-
Lebron v. State
...Lane, where he met Arevalo. The trial court could take judicial notice that Governours Lane is in Marion County. See Orman v. State, 332 N.E.2d 818, 819 (Ind.Ct.App.1975) (court permitted to take notice that address is within county); see also Ind. Evid. R. 201 (the court may judicially not......