State v. Caskey

• Decision Date: 15 December 1925
• Docket Number: No. 37082.,37082.
• Parties: STATE v. CASKEY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

200 Iowa 1397

206 N.W. 280

STATE

v.CASKEY.

No. 37082.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 15, 1925.

Appeal from District Court, Buena Vista County; James De Land, Judge.

Defendant was indicted for violation of the intoxicating liquor statute. The court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant on the ground that the venue and jurisdiction had not been proven. The state appeals. Reversed.Ben. J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., Stanton S. Faville, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Mack & Young and Charles E. Pendleton, Co. Atty., all of Storm Lake, for the State.

Healy & Breen, of Ft. Dodge, for appellee.

ALBERT, J.

The crime is alleged to have been committed in Buena Vista county, Iowa, and the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant because this allegation of the indictment was not supported by evidence. In State v. Mitchell, 139 Iowa, 455, 116 N. W. 808, we held that the courts of this state shall take judicial notice of the geography of the state and the location of cities and incorporated towns with reference to the county boundaries. To the same effect see State v. Laffer, 38 Iowa, 422;State v. Reader, 60 Iowa, 527, 15 N. W. 423. We have also held that, where a witness located the place of the commission of a crime at a certain number of miles in a certain direction from a city or town, the court shall take judicial notice that such point falls within or without the boundaries of the county in which the crime is charged to have been committed. State v. Heft, 148 Iowa, 617, 127 N. W. 830;State v. Meyer, 135 Iowa, 507, 113 N. W. 322, 124 Am. St. Rep. 291, 14 Ann. Cas. 1.

[1] We have also determined that venue may be proven by inference as well as by direct assertion by the witness. State v. Meyer, supra. In other words, a sum total of these holdings is that the witness need not testify in words that the crime was committed within the county in question, but such fact, if fairly inferable from the testimony given, is sufficient to carry the question of venue to the jury.

[2] Turning now to the testimony, the witness Chambers testifies that he was hired by Buena Vista county to secure evidence against violators of the prohibition laws of the state. He was asked the following question: “Were you or were you not at the farm of I. Caskey in Buena Vista county, Iowa?” He answered: “Yes.” He then relates that on the 18th of April, 1924, he and Pete Thompson purchased a quart of intoxicating liquor for $3.50 from the appellee, Caskey, at the home of the...